Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Perch/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:31, 30 May 2009 [1].

Operation Perch[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I'm nominating this article for featured article as a few of us have worked on this article and whipped it into shape; I believe it now largely meets all FA criteria.

This is an operation that took place during the early stages of the WW2 Normandy campaign and is often overlooked bar the famous battle at Villers-Bocage.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: Support

  • Why are there no casualty numbers for either side? Skinny87 (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are unknown, to me at least. While authors provide an outline of what Perch is they do not provide casualty figures. One author does provide some figures but these are for the whole month of June and then only for a few of the British forces that were involved.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say about that; it seems unusual that not one source gives even vague casualty figures for the operation. I don't know whether to oppose over the issue, but I'll add some more comments below.
If i was to venture a guess i would say it is because the focus of the fighting is the battle at Villers-Bocage, this is what has taken up the most pages of historians work. The vauge answer would be from Forty (which i will double check later) who does provide casualty figures but if i recall correctly that would be casualties suffered to XXX Corps forces through all of June and then not includding all formations that took part. I dont see why this should be a reason to oppose, not all battles are adquetely covered.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this comment is bugging me, since I have been thrust into the position of having to defend the lack of professional research into this operation – that is overshadowed by the Villers-Bocage battle – here is a breakdown of the info provided by the sources I have:

Buckley - overviews the operation and mentions it throughout the book as a case study but no casualties are mentioned.
D'Este - rambles on about the whole Villers-Bocage move and consequences but doesn’t even provide casualties for the battle.
Delaforce - focuses on the 7th Arm and V-B
Ellis doesn’t provide any casualty information.
Hart informs us that at least 24,464 casualties were taken by 2nd Army during June till 3 July however this not relevant to Perch.
Forty provides end of June, so outside the scope of this article, casualty information for 7th and 50th divisions but none for other British formations involved in Perch nor German casualties.
Fortin provides 7th Arm Div casualty figures for the whole of June.
Gill and Randel basically gloss over the events in both their books
Meyer provides enough information to possibly piece together a figure for 12th SS losses but none for Pnz-Lehr.
Taylor – overviews what Perch is then doesn’t really talk about considering his book is on VB
Reynolds – provides more background info than say D'Este but likewise focuses on V-B and again doesn’t provide figures for that battle.
Wilmot focuses on V-B

So a mixture of sources from those focusing on the allied side to those focusing on the axis side neither of whom give precise information on casualties. --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't it be 'Second World War' and not 'World War II' as it was a British/Commonwealth operation?
    addressed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para of the introduction, and part of the second, need rewriting - it's unclear which operation Perch was a follow-on from, and which operation (Perch or its predeccessor) was called off due to German resistance.
    addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you wikilink Operation Tonga in the introduction in the 'British airborne forces' sentence? It sees like the best place for it.
    Done and also linked to in main text.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'and pushed through the gap' - that doesn't really seem the right wording, 'ordered to advance through the gap' or somesuch seems more accurate and less dramatic.
    Changed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'After two days of intense fighting which included the Battle of Villers-Bocage, on 14 June the division was withdrawn and the operation suspended' - Stating why this occurred would be a good idea - ie, German resistance.
    edited--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Once ashore on Gold Beach, the 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division was tasked with moving rapidly inland to capture Bayeux and the road to Tilly-sur-Seulles.[2][3] Operation Perch's original purpose, decided before D-Day, was to create the threat of a British breakout to the southeast of Caen' - It might just be me, but these two sentence don't seem to go together; or if they do, they don't flow logically.
    Reworded EyeSerenetalk 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'However, two days later Caen was still firmly in German hands' - expanding slightly on why this was so would be a good idea.
  • A bigger problem is that in the second para of the 'Planning' section, there is seemingly no link between Perch and Wild Oats; I mean, I assume the latter was a subset of the former, but this needs to be clarified - the section is confusing as it now stands.
    This section is confusing because the sources are too, both on the relation between Wild Oats and Perch and even on exactly what Perch was. I've added something in, but it may be stretching the sources too far (EnigmaMcmxc will be able to advise). EyeSerenetalk 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Notes made on Perch talk page. Should be able to address this point in the next day or so.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe this is now addressed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'OB West, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt,' - Surely this should be 'The commander of OB West...'?
    Correct, changed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink 6th Airborne Division, if you would.
    already done--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'To close the gap in the British perimeter the decision was made to secure Bréville; of the 160 men with which it began the attack, the 12th Battalion the Parachute Regiment suffered 141 casualties, but by midnight had captured the village' - I don't have Otway with me at the moment, but was the 12th the only unit sent against Breville? Either way, this needs to be rewritten to make it more clear - at the momement it reads as if the 12th's losses are just being used as an example.
    Changed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes need to be in numerical order when multiple ones are cited.
    believe this is now done.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - with the copyedit complete, everything looks good. Cam (Chat) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold I've cleaned up the SS designations (SS-Panzer is written with a hyphen by the Germans and it's Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion), added links for various units, and corrected a couple of typos. I'm concerned that none of the readily available German unit histories have been used; forex Meyer's 12th SS-Panzer Division, Ritgen's book on Panzerlehr or even the recent compilation by Steinhardt; all of which are in English. Neither Zetterling's book or website [2] on the German OB has been consulted for OB data. And Ken Tout has done a book or two on the battle for Tilly. Without these I'm not at all sure that we've gotten an accurate account of the battle and cannot pass the FAC until their data has been incorporated. It's a lot of work, but it's needed to get both sides of the picture. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Am sorry but i feel this is a harsh reason not to pass an article when other articles have not consulted these sources; it is not like the article is solely reliant on British unit histories; the majority of books used are post war secondary sources that take into account both sides of the story. Tout’s book isn’t even on this battle, it is about the fighting for Tilly-la-Campagne - a part of Operation Totailize. Meyer’s book was consulted however it focuses on the fighting north of Caen, which this operation is not about.
    If you think the article is not accurate please elaborate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the article is accurate or not, I've not read all of your bibliography or even parts of it any time recently. But I am concerned that y'all are relying on American/British/Canadian sources without checking out those from the Axis perspective. You can't rely on them to have unbiased or even comprehensive data on the Germans. While I have a great deal of respect for somebody like d'Este his book covers the entire Battle of Normandy and can necessarily only devote a few pages to this particular operation. And I don't trust Reynolds, I thought his book was a bit pro-SS. And Ellis writes almost in a total vacuum about German plans and intentions because he was too close to the war to get better information. I'm glad to see that you consulted Meyer (my own copy is in storage), but a bit surprised to hear that there wasn't much coverage this early in the campaign. I'd like to read about the Germans' perceptions, actions, and plans from their own mouths rather than filtered through Allied eyes. Have y'all looked at Dave Isby's compilations of post-war German battle reports for anything useful? What about Richard Hargreaves' The Germans in Normandy? Perhaps I am being too harsh by demanding a higher standard, but I don't think so. Not for a FAC, especially when one participant appears to have been slighted in the research. And you're completely right about the Tout book <blush>, I can only plead that my copy is in storage and it's been a couple of years since I read it. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've procured Germans in Normandy, but I'm not really familiar with the subject or the area. I'll haver a flick through and see what I can find. Skinny87 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through Steinhardt's book on Panzer Lehr, which is mostly a compilation of the post-war historical reports by Bayerlein supplemented by accounts from Ritgen, etc., but lacks a lot of detail on this battle. I've expanded footnote 3 to cover the controversy regarding the division's losses en-route to the battlefield. Personally I'd change the main body of the text to say that some losses were incurred en-route, moving Bayerlein's numbers to the footnote, but I'm not the primary here. I do think that Ritgen's divisional history will have more info on Lehr's participation in this battle and should be read. OCLC numbers need to be added for some books. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did OCLC numbers become something we "need" to have? I'm really not sure that they add anything useful in circumstances when we already have an ISBN - which, in this case, is all but one of the books, and that one is already online. Shimgray | talk | 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One image concern as follows:

  • File:Perch Map.jpg: could this not be replaced with a public domain map of the area that is overlayed with original designs of the deployements based on the information from the sourced book? Could any map from the US Military Academy here not fit this purpose?

Other than that, no qualms with the other images; they are either under UK's Crown Copyrights from 1944 (thus clearing the URAA hurdle) or released by the German Federal Archive. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the link however the maps do not really give the same level of detail as the one used. While not perfect and highlighting the gap in the German lines something like File:Right Hook and VillersBocage.jpg could be used? I could just pull the image from the article and not replace it if that will resolve the issue?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer the maps by the US Engineers here at LoC? They are large maps that can be zoomed in and cover June 6, 1944, up to the end of the war. This map gives a clean view of Caen and Bayeux. File:Right Hook and VillersBocage.jpg is a confusing mess of what permission the file is used as (GFDL or fair use?) and I would discourage its use. Jappalang (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some free time this morning, so I'll have a go at knocking up an svg composite of the various versions linked above. EyeSerenetalk 08:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done that. Better? EyeSerenetalk 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didnt get back sooner - nice one EyeSerene, beautiful work!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - looks like I've finally worked out (with some tips from User:Jarry1250!) how to get Inkscape svg's to render correctly on WP :D If it needs any alterations, let me know. EyeSerenetalk 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ace work, EyeSerene, can you list the maps (and their links) used for your work under Source? Jappalang (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No image issues. Jappalang (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments for now. On the whole Support this tour de force is engaging and very well-written. I have a few nitpicks:
  • Here, led to the operation being called off we have a fused participle I think, but "led to the operation's being called off" is ugly. Could this phrase be recast?
    • Changed to 'foiled the operation'
  • There are a few occurrences of "a number of" where I think "several" would be better.
    • Changed
  • What are "local adjustments"?
    • Rephrased sentence
  • This sentence is a snake, Meanwhile, to the west, American pressure had opened up a gap in the German lines, and in an attempt to keep operations mobile the 7th Armoured Division was diverted from the combat around Tilly-sur-Seulles and ordered to advance through the gap in a flanking manoeuvre intended to force the Germans to fall back. I suggest a period after "lines" followed by "In an attempt..."
    • Split per suggestion
  • Here, After two days of intense fighting which included the Battle of Villers-Bocage - should "which" be changed to "that"? If we want to retain "which" it should be set off with a comma before it. This is done correctly several times later on.
    • Oops, fixed
  • We have "due to" a few times where "because of" would be better.
    • Changed
  • This sentence should be recast: However, this was redeemed to some extent by the fact that to contain the offensive the Germans had been forced to prematurely commit their most powerful armoured reserves in a defensive role, in which they incurred heavy losses and were unavailable for use in counteroffensive operations. Mainly to resolve the clumsy "by the fact that to contain".
    • Heh, I didn't like that when I wrote it :P Recast
  • Here, a comma is needed before "which": the British 3rd Infantry Division which landed on Sword Beach on 6 June 1944. (See above)
    • Fixed
  • We have in order to acquire - how about a simple "to acquire"?
    • Reworded
  • Another snake: Hampered by congestion in the beachhead that delayed the deployment of its armoured support, and forced to divert effort to attacking strongly held German positions along the 9.3-mile (15.0 km) route to Caen, I Corps's 3rd Infantry Division was unable to generate enough momentum to get into the town on D-Day and was stopped short of its outskirts by the 21st Panzer Division. I am not sure how this one should be killed.
    • Reworded
  • Is "codenamed" one word? I am not sure.
    • I believe it's one of those that can be either one word or two, but hyphenated is probably better. Changed
  • This might be another fused participle the drop would result in the division being too scattered to fulfil its objectives,
    • Reworded
  • Is another "was" needed in here: it was incorporated into Operation Perch and Wild Oats (was) dropped as a separate operation?
    • Fixed
  • We need to check the usage of "also"; they are rarely needed.
    • Removed and reworded some; others remain (please alter as you see fit!)
  • Here, unable to overcome the formidable resistance being offered by Panzerlehr - I think "being" is redundant.
    • Fixed
  • This sentence is difficult to fathom: Ludovic Fortin implies that in the event 51st Highland advanced alone, giving the 4th Armoured Brigade's first major combat as Operation Epsom and prior to which it was supporting the 50th Division.
    • Reworded
  • This sentence, While Harris ordered his tank into an alternative firing position, a tank-hunting party led by Major John Mogg, the acting battalion commander, finished it off. - which tank was finished off, Harris's?
    • That did occur at the time of writing, but I hoped it was sufficiently unambiguous. Obviously not ;)

That's all from me apart from the split infinitive in "to swiftly capture". I don't mind split infinitives at all. I hope this useful and I look forward to adding my support. Graham Colm Talk 13:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these; will address asap. EyeSerenetalk 09:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the above points are now sorted. EyeSerenetalk 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my support, well done. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 17:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Operation Market Garden.
  1. Wikicommons link?
    Ok i have just looked at the Operation Market Garden article that has a commons link. Now i can understand why that is there as it links to about 200 images however if one does the same for Perch it only links to the map already used in the article so i dont think it is approbriate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. External links are too brief to tell me what they lead to.
    Addressed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Last ref has 'self-published source?' - this needs sorting.
    I have removed the tag. The article that the tag links to states :"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The website author has had several books published by reliable 3rd party sources. Additionally the website provides the source material used, in this instance the author has used 'H. Ritgen, Die Gechichte der Panzer-Lehr-Division im Westen 1944-1945 (Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 1979) p. 102' The German nor the English translation is in my posession.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Does it need Template:World War II/Template:Battle of Normandy?
    No they are out of date templates (as per a discussed last year on the MiLHist project talk page iirc), the WW2 portal is used in place nd there is the Normandy campaign box near the top of the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Otterathome (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Perch/archive1&oldid=1088117959"