Talk:American logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 08:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so long as it hasn't been forgotten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images appropriately licensed. Not thrilled with the alternating left and right placements in some sections.
  • Link Allied, English Channel, US Navy in the lede
    checkY Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In administrative matters the staff of ETOUSA, and the chiefs of the services in particular, were supreme, and in a dispute between the service chief of one of the armies or army groups and the one at COMZ, the latter could appeal to the ETOUSA service chief, who was himself. This was resented by the former, who considered that they favored COMZ. Awkward.
    checkY Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsistence is what, exactly?
    "food and forage, which are consumed by personnel or animals at an approximately uniform rate, irrespective of local changes in combat or terrain conditions." [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link tanker truck, POL, small arms, anti-tank rockets
    checkY linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell the reader what countries cities are in.
    That would read very awkward. Do you think it is really necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, especially if they set up any depots in Luxembourg. Don't overestimate the geographic literacy of Americans in particular as I think many Wikipedians do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY Alright then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Down to Preps for the Rhine crossing, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use digits for forty-five
    MOS:NUMERAL: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True enough, but note: Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cranes generally are rated by weight capacity, not by volume capacity
    It's what the source says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange, very strange.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    looking into it further, it does seem to be relatively common. [2][3][4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The key phrase in a couple of those is earth-moving, but there's no mention of such in the article on cranes, which makes me think that the terminology has changed in the last 80 years. Perhaps excavator or front-end loader is what they'd be called now, though that's sheer speculation on my part.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ponton is spelled pontoon and link the term on first use
    That's British English. In US English it is spelt "ponton". Per the sources and stuff like [5][6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an American and I don't think that I've ever seen ponton in my life. I wonder if this spelling is some sort of archaic holdover by the Corps of Engineers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite possible. In any case, it is speltt that way in the current DOD dictionary. I looked it up when this was queried on an earlier article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem with this was that its Sherman tanks were fitted with track extenders that helped them move over snow and mud. To accommodate this, two M1 treadways were modified by increasing the space between the treadways. It's unclear how the Sherman track extensions relate to the width of the treadways
    Unclear why wider tracks require wider treadways? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon a reread, I was still thinking about getting the engineering equipment across the Rhine as earlier in the paragraph. Perhaps the Ninth Army's actions should be split out into its own paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I included an image of a British Sherman with duck bills on the British article, but could not find a picture of a US Sherman with them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link air staff
    No target to link to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Remagen bridge was lightly damaged when the Germans tried to demolish it.
    checkY Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the link for treadway bridge to it's first appearance
    checkY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain the difference between automatic weapons and anti-aircraft gun battalions or just lump them together
    Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just lump them together as anti-aircraft battalions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bridge at Wesel became a major bottleneck. Due to the collapse of the Ludendorff bridge, it had to handle traffic for both the First and Ninth Armies, raising issues of coordination and traffic control. Combine these two sentences
    checkY Combined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 21st Army Group also asked for an allocation of what?
    checkY Rail traffic. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truck-tractor is not a term used by Americans. Link it and semi-trailer.
    checkY It is used in my American sources. eg. [7], p. 225. Linked. (I never saw big rigs in the US. I'm sure they have them, but they seem to be rare over there.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that truck-tractor is an old term not much used anymore, although the Army may still hang on to it. Big rigs or semi are colloquial for tractor-trailer combinations. Tractors without a trailer are usually referred to as bobtail tractors; I expect to minimize any confusion with farm tractors. Road trains I only know from Australia as the US generally doesn't allow more than two trailers per tractor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have separate articles on Wikipedia, which have been linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch your inappropriate spelling out of numbers. It's particularly bad in the Motor Transport section
    MOS:NUMERAL: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've split out the bit about the Ninth Army's bridges into its own paragraph; feel free to revert if you like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_logistics_in_the_Western_Allied_invasion_of_Germany/GA1&oldid=1161371266"