Talk:Operation Overlord/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and have a go at this over the next week or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Diannaa (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to butt in, but there's a "page needed" tag on one of the citations. The phrase it goes with too looks a bit clumsy, and would be great if it could like to the relevant articles. Great job though! Brigade Piron (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron. This book is available locally, so I am going to amend the sentence to agree with what I've found out so far, which is that soldiers of several nationalities were incorporated into the Canadian First Army. It doesn't mention Norwegians or Greeks in this context so I am going to take that bit out for now and will reincorporate it later if I can source it. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The recent addition regarding First Canadian Army. I am aware of several brigades of various nationalities comprising part of the army. However, the Free French and American bit sticks out like a sore thumb. As far as I am aware, during the campaign, the Free French provided a commando battalion with the 1st Special Service Brigade, which - at least - started the campaign with British Second Army and they also provided an armoured division with the Americans. Likewise, during Overlord I have seen no mention of American forces being placed under the command of either the British or Canadian armies (with the exception of being under the direct command of 21st Army Group and Monty). Therefore, I think this either needs to be amended or expanded upon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: I think the info regarding Operation Epsom needs to be tweaked. While, yes, it was a failed attempt to swing around Caen, the operation was much more than that resulting in German offensive plans being scrapped, many tanks destroyed, and brining about a strategic victory. Personally, I think - due to the numerous divisions and brigades that took part - that a link to VIII Corps (United Kingdom) would be better suited rather than the links to a selected couple of units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- no dablink or EL issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structure -- the general layout seemed reasonable to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose -- copyedited throughout, as is my wont, so pls let me know if you disagree with anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content/detail

Under Rehearsals and security, the point about security might be underlined by mentioning that some senior officers were relieved of their command for mouthing off.
- Added more on this topic.
  - Tks, the 'cocktail party general' was one of those I was recalling during my review -- the details were confirmed when I checked Ambrose last night...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under Casualties, you start with "The Allies suffered 209,672 casualties from 6 June to the end of August..." and proceed to "total Allied casualties were 226,386 men" -- if there's an explanation for the discrepancy, it's not obvious to me...
- Fixed; the given numbers add up to 209,672, which agrees with Whitmarsh page 109.
Just noting, the tone throughout is neutral and dispassionate, and the level of detail seems appropriate as an overview of the operation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Other Allied nations also participated" – this should be cited like any other statement; perhaps it should in fact spell those nations out.
- I have found a cite for the general information, but to date have been unable to locate a comprehensive list. I will keep looking.
  - Don't sweat it for GA, but it may be something to have for MilHist A-Class Review or FAC if you're looking to those next. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking again, however, any nation/group mentioned in the infobox needs a citation, either there or in the main body. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This was not the case for German forces" (re. punishment for looting) -- ditto.
- Unsourced statement has been removed.
Any German sources used?
- No, I don't speak German.
  - Heh, I was thinking more of books by German authors translated into English. Admittedly I only know of one of the top of my head, Paul Carell's Invasion! They're Coming!, which I've read and which Ambrose, for one, used as a source. Per above, I wouldn't necessarily worry about German sources for GA, but I think it'd be expected for ACR or FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understand there may be no need to use Cornelius Ryan as a reference per se but would've thought it worth including under Further reading.
- Done.
I have Ambrose and Beever so will try and spotcheck those over the next day or two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambrose:
  - Fn028 – okay
- Beever:
  - Fn007 – well, not quite 450,000; Beever says "nearly 240,000 casualties and lost another 200,000 to Allied captivity"
    - Editing to match Beevor; I don't have access to the other source.
      - Comment: For what its worth: Shulman states "210,000 Germans had become prisoners-of-war- since the invasion, and another 240,000 had been either killed or wounded. In other words almost half the total number of German troops engaged in the battle of Normandy."(Shulman, p. 192) He does provide a pretty decent size list of sources, but doesn't state where he gets these figures from exactly. Carlo D'Este, basing his figures off the "Supreme Commander's Report" places German losses at 200,000 killed or wounded and a further 200,000 captured (D'Este, pp. 517-8). I don't have any further sources to hand that detail German casualties during Overlord. No advise on what to do, and use the figures as you see fit although it is not like either source is golden on the subject, and despites its problems Beevor's is the latest (afaik) on the subject.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fn026 – okay
  - Fn036c – okay
  - Fn064 – okay
  - Fn080 – okay
  - Fn098 – Beever seems to say that on 1 June the embarkation for the first wave was "under way and due to be completed in two days' time", which would mean that some troops were boarding as early as five days before the invasion; how did you read it?
    - It looks like some men boarded nearly a week in advance. Fixed.
  - Fn100 – okay
  - Fn102 – okay
  - Fn111 – okay
  - Fn129 – okay
  - Fn145 – Beever doesn't mention Operation Perch explicitly so perhaps that should be piped to "attempted to push south". Also I think the page range should be 190–192, since the map on 190 makes clearer XXX Corps' and I Corps' involvement (only the lower-echelon units are mentioned on 191) and the defeat is clearer on 192
    - Wilmot specifically uses the term Operation Perch, so I have added his account as a second citation. I also changed the page range for Beevor as suggested.
      - I have made several amendments to the article regarding Operation Perch, per its FA status article and the Battle of Villers-Bocage article, which clarify what it was all about and what happened.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fn166 – perhaps substitute or include p. 445, as that's where Beever explicitly mentions the operation name (and the invasion area)
    - We need both, as p.447 is where he gives the exact date.
- Fenton:
  - Fn070 – okay
- Stacey:
  - Fn170 – okay
  - Fn171 – okay
- Bottom line: based on the above, I'm pretty comfortable that the sources are being used accurately and without plagiarism or close paraphrasing, but there may be a little room for finetuning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting materials -- will aim to check image licensing over the w/e... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image licensing appears okay to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary -- I think this is a well-written overview of a major topic/event and I'm about ready to pass it but would like to wait until the latest comments/changes by other editors are acknowledged; also the HarvError on citation 151 (Ellis) is still there, let me know if you need a pointer to the script that highlights these things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the broken Harvard citation. Since EnigmaMcmxc is able to confirm the contents of the Shulman citation, I have decided to put a range for the German casualties, with Whitmarsh as the low one and Shulman as the high one. Regarding Epsom, I have added a little more content on this operation that I hope will suffice to flesh it out adequately. Please let me know if there's anything else that got missed. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having fixed a couple of last-minute prose thingies I reckon this is good to go -- well done and I hope to see it at MilHist ACR, and then perhaps FAC, in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to say the addition about Epsom looks good, and overall an excellent job getting this article into shape.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that makes it "finally final", as they said in Yes Minister, so we'll call this a pass and I'll go and update the article talk page and the GA list accordingly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Ian, and thanks to everyone else who helped with this important project. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-review comments[edit]

Hello,

I know I'm butting in again, but I have a couple of suggestions - of course, please do not consider them as essential for passing but they still might be of interest.

Infobox: could the allied powers be put in some kind of order - number, alphabetical etc. - it doesn't particularly matter which, but the current layout seems a bit eccentric.
Mention of Allied strategic bombing. I have skimmed the entire article, but if there is any reference to attacks on railways across France & Belgium, I have missed it. It would certainly be worth a phrase (and a link to Transport Plan) to show that the preparations affected all of occupied France and Belgium, not just Normandy & Pas-de-Calais.
I may be wrong, but I believe the most significant Free French unit on D-Day was No. 4 Commando rather than the SAS, so perhaps the casualties currently listed as SAS only are misattributed?

Brigade Piron (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

Infobox: I suspect they were listed in the order people added them. I've re-organised by placing the top three nations first and the remainder alphabetically.
Transport Plan: Added
SAS: I removed the information about the SAS early on, but an IP re-inserted it. I am unable to access the source to confirm. My preference would have been to remove the material completely, but I was not prepared to edit war to do so. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I got waylaid after saving my last comment... Actually I wasn't sure about the French SAS bit either but neglected to raise it at the time. Aside from anything else, the page ranges for the refs are far too large to be useful, and the language of "77 killed including 200 wounded" is poor. My inclination would be to remove it and if the IP wants to discuss on the article talk page then we can do so. I don't doubt that French SAS troops were involved and took casualties but if part of a British unit they might well be numbered with the British losses... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got the impression that each individual soldier had one page in the book, hence the large page range. I will go ahead and remove it. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, thank you for your responses & congratulations for the successful nomination. Brigade Piron (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]