Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign/archive1
- 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2021 [1].
British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign[edit]
This article is the next in my series on logistics of the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945. The "Siegfried Line campaign" is not an official designation, but nor is it a Wikipedia one. When the American official historians were preparing their series of works back in 1945, the American official designation for the campaign that came after the breakout and pursuit is "Rhineland", but the historians felt that it covered too many battles, and divided it in two: the Siegfried Line campaign (the actions of the US First and Ninth Armies in the north) and the Lorraine campaign (the actions of the US Third and Seventh Armies in the south). For our purposes, we have them both under the umbrella of the Siegfried Line campaignbox, along with the British and Canadian actions. The British divided the period into four phases: the advance from Brussels to the Nederrijn (Operation Market Garden), the Channel Ports (clearing the Channel Coast), the Opening of Antwerp (Battle of the Scheldt) and the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge). This article therefore covers the logistics of the 21st Army Group in the period from September 1944 to January 1945; the earlier period from June to September 1944 has been covered in British logistics in the Normandy campaign, and that leaves the campaigns of 1945 for a future article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Support by Nick-D[edit]
I provided a pedantic source review of this article during its A-class review, and was very impressed with the article and the range of sources used. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- " in the Second World War operations " - bit clunky
- The second para of the lead should note that while the advance through Normandy was slower than planned, the advance through the rest of France and Belgium was much quicker given the German collapse
- Can the 'Organisation' section note briefly how logistics for the small national conventional forces (the Polish armoured division, Czechs, Free Dutch brigade, etc) that were serving with the British and Canadians were managed? I presume that they were treated as if they were British or Canadian units.
- The 'Market Garden' section doesn't seem to cover the difficulties the British had resupplying the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem? The huge, very brave and not entirely successful supply dropping operation deserves some coverage.
- What's a 'Queen Mary transporter'?
Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Source review - pass[edit]
- Taking this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've fixed a deadlink and archived all of the current links; I've also changed some OCLCs which did not lead anywhere.
- Buckley, John (2013) per WorldCat the used OCLC of 1026765168 is for a 2014 edition unless this OCLC is in a physical book you used, suggest using 0300205341 from 2013 and which corresponds to the listed ISBN; ISBN is good for both editions.
- Carter, J. A. H.; Kann, D. N. (1961) used OCLC seems to correspond to a 1974 edition, per same stipulations above suggest 632441304.
- Ellis, L. F.; Warhurst, A. E. (1968) OCLC given gives a date of 1962, may wish to either change date to 1962 or insert an orig-year of 1962, depending on which was used. If you aren't changing the date, suggest OCLC of 491514035.
- King, Benjamin; Kutta, Timothy (1998) what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Benjamin King is a well-known historian. In his US Army service he worked with rockets, hence the interest in the V-2. At the time the book was written he was chief historian of the US Army Transportation Command. He has written several books on logistics. He has an article; linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Langston, Keith; Kerr, Fred (2012) is there a reason the location of Barnsley, South Yorkshire isn't included?
- Mead, Richard (2015) what makes him a high-quality reliable source? Additionally, standardize locations that aren't mononyms to city, state, so Barnsley, South Yorkshire here.
- Ruppenthal, Roland G. (1959) the OCLC leads to a 1978 edition, and the link leads to a 1995 edition; if linked edition was used suggest date of 1995 and orig-year of 1959.
- Ruppenthal, Roland G. (1960) this OCLC seems to correspond to a 1978 edition, suggest changing to 631288908 OCLC for 1960 edition, per usual stipulations of usage.
- @Hawkeye7: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt[edit]
- "Civilian labour was utilised at the bases in a variety of other tasks to enable military personnel to be released for work in forward areas." I might delete "other" (what does it add?) and change "work" to "service".
- "90,000 civilians were employed by the 21st Army Group, of whom half were employed in workshops" were employed/were employed
- "which included RAF personnel and prisoners of war," On the assumption these POWs were German etc, I would suggest adding "Axis" before "prisoners". Otherwise there's a bit of an ambiguity.
- " and agreements were signed with France and Poland in 1939 and 1940, and the Czechoslovak, Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian governments in exile in 1941.[29][30]" If this says that the agreement with Poland was in 1940, wasn't it a government in exile by then?
- "The BSDs held five days' supplies for the army." should there be an "each" after BSDs? Otherwise perhaps a "cumulatively"?
- Grave is double-linked.
- "and when the 21st Army Group requested permission to railway terminal, SHAEF re-allocated it to British control on 23 October." to railway terminal?
- "The coasters and landing ships had been in continuous use since D-Day, resulting in wear and tear, and an ever-increasing proportion were deadlined for repairs, and the deteriorating autumn weather did not help." the multiple "and"s read awkwardly.
- Done through "Ports", more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Two systems were planned: the first, with a pumping station codenamed "Bambi" was established at Sandown on the Isle of Wight would supply fuel to a terminal near Cherbourg, 65 nautical miles (120 km; 75 mi) distant;" I think the "would" is causing problems. Maybe "to" and additional commas?
- "and that stocking of the advanced base would continue until it held 14 days' reserves and 14 days' working margin prescribed by the War Office.[141][79]" refs out of order, unless intended so.
- "It was highly undesirable for Hospitals to be under canvas under winter conditions." why the capital?
- In the legacy section, can anything be said about how having such a logistics campaign affected the next phase of the war? Or, to quote Southey, "But what good came of it at last?" (quoth little Peterkin)
Support from Vami[edit]
The A-Class review closed before I could finish my statements. Reserving this spot here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
162 FMC [...] No. 162 FMC [...] 161 FMC [...] No. 161 FMC
Standardize.These were supplemented by hired and requisitioned Belgian civilian animal transport.
Was there Belgian military animal transport? And did they hire horses?Bierghes and Quenast aren't linked.
Up to Railways. Will resume tomorrow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
This work was carried out by British Army, civilian and POW workers.
I can see the case for not including a "the" before "British Army", but this is kind of awkward without it. Maybe "[...] was carried out by enlisted British, French civilian and POW workers."?
- No, it means it was carried out by British Army workers, and civilian workers, and POW workers. It is fine as it is.
Two new armoured vehicles were received: [...]
When?It closed for good in November, following which work commenced on dismantling it.
Recommend "and thereafter work commenced".
Reading finished. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Recusing to review.
- "What then followed was a far more ..." Suggest deleting "then".
- "Although not unlimited". This seems to be a redundant statement of the completely obvious, suggest deleting.
- "by 16 June it was handling 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) per day". Optional: Give the total daily tonnage, or the 2,000 LT as a percentage of the total, to put this in context.
- "but it could not be used as a port until the Germans were cleared from the Scheldt approaches". Might it be worth briefly explaining why?
- "By this time there were no bridges over the Seine between Rouen and the sea". Do you mean 'At this time ...'?
- Could we have an in line explanation of "DUKWs".
- "could be not satisfactorily stocked". 'not be'?
- "The 11th Line of Communications Area, then assumed control". Why the comma?
- "In addition to the Canadians, the 21st Army Group also included the 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade, the Dutch Princess Irene Brigade, 1st Polish Armoured Division and French contingents." No Czech units? They are mentioned in the next sentence.
- "44,000 rations of bread per day". What is the difference between a ration and a loaf? Worth a footnote?
- Link "other ranks" to other ranks (UK).
- "The capture of Boulogne would facilitate Operation Pluto, the laying of a pipeline across the English Channel to deliver petrol." I find this a little misleading in that it ignores the already operational PLUTO pipeline.
- "Montgomery intended to outflank the Siegfried Line". Could we have a mention in line of what the Siegfried Line was?
- "The seaborne tail of the 1st Airborne Division". I think that "seaborne tail" is jargon and one would need to be an informed reader to understand what was meant.
- "delivered 65 long tons (66 t) per day, for a total of 18,000 long tons (18,000 t)." You sure? that would take them 277 days.
- "the loss of a platoon of vehicles". Is the number of vehicles in a platoon known?
- No need to put "Luftwaffe" in italics as it is accepted as an English language word. If you disagree, use a {{lang}} template, not '' code.
- A section is titled "Garden", but there is no explanation as to what this might mean.
- "1530". The MoS suggests "Twenty-four-hour clock times are written in the form 08:15 and 22:55".
- "Plans for air resupply were based on the automatic resupply for four days". Is "the" needed?
- "both of which were back in England". Suggest 'both of which were based in England'.
- "99 Stirlings and 63 Dakotas; eighteen aircraft were lost." Why the switch from numerals to words?
- "The DAA was no under mortar fire". 'now'?
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- "LCTs". In full at first mention.
- What are "wet basins"?
- "British base sub area commander." 'sub-area'?
- Could there be an in line explanation of "seehunds" and could a {{lang}} template be used.
- "This provided a nominal increase in bread-making capacity of 152,000 pounds (69,000 kg) per day", Do we know what it increased to?
- I may have missed it, but it would be helpful if we could be told, even if only in general terms, how many vehicles there were in a transport platoon or company. And how many transport platoons made up a transport company. Ah, just found the answer to the latter. Perhaps it could be moved a bit higher up the text? Merely a suggestion.
- "command mixed transport units". If this is a proper name, should it not have upper case initials?
- What are "haunches"? They aren't even in Wiktionary.
- "POW". In full at first mention.
- " By the end of the year, 75 railway bridges consisting of 202 spans were partly or completely rebuilt. By the end of the year, most of the repairs to". " By the end of the year ... By the end of the year". Would it be possible to avoid the repetition?
- CRASC is defined as "Commander Royal Army Service Corps", in which case "A CRASC transport column HQ that had been specially trained in handling air freight" doesn't seem to make sense.
- Why does Flimsy have an upper case initial?
- "to 250,000 long tons (250,000 t) in early 1945", Is there a 'per month' missing?
- "but military railway traffic to a standstill." Needs a verb.
- "industrial production for military purposes, such as ... laundries". ?
- "About 1 long ton (1.0 t) of pit props was required for every 40 long tons (41 t) of coal. ... To meet demand they had to produce 1,400 long tons (1,400 t) of timber each day. ... The production target of 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) of coal per day was met soon thereafter." The maths doesn't work. 2,000 tons of coal suggests 50 tons of props, not 1,400. 1,400 tons of props suggests 56,000 tons of coal.
- Matches the sources though. What do you suggest? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Lose one of the numbers. Personally the reported 1,400 tons of props per day seems silly. It would mean clear felling and processing c. 20 acres a day. That is a mind boggling amount of timber. I suspect that it is the monthly figure. I recommend leaving that out - you already have the timber:output ratio and the eventual output, so a reader can do their own calculation if they wish.
- Matches the sources though. What do you suggest? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- "with twenty arriving at each every day". Twenty tanks or twenty LSTs?
- "Clearance presented a problem". What is "clearance"?
- "A reversion to using British tanks", If this is a reference to the Comet, could we be told that it is a British tank.
- As there are a couple of mentions of increasing numbers of Fireflies, maybe a reference to why? If only a 'superior' or 'more effective' next to "17-pounder".
- "During the German Ardennes offensive, the American depots ceased accepting shipments from Antwerp". Why?
- "and as such there were more of them than could be gainfully employed." Suggest deleting "and as such".
- "as prisoner of war camps in north-west Europe then became overcrowded". Should "then" be 'had'?
- "the availability of timber." "availability" → 'shortage'?
- "Hospitals in particular could not be under canvas under winter conditions." Well, they could be. Maybe rephrase?
- "Six general hospitals in the RMA". Do you mean 'The personal of ...'? If not, I don't understand the sentence.
- "in the theatre" Do you mean 'in the 21st Army area'? If not, perhaps specify the theatre.
- The connection of the last paragraph of Services seems only tenuously linked to the topic.
- "This included 15,000,000 rations, which were gradually eaten." Er, yes. Is it known by whom?
- " Half of the ordnance and engineering stores still had to be moved forward,[159] but by the end of December only 670 long tons (680 t) of ammunition remained in the RMA." Suggest moving the date to the start of the sentence.
- "over-insurance"? Perhaps 'over-supply'?
And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Your usual masterclass. Just the pit props I have come back on, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
Pass per my review at the ACR, assuming no images have been added in the interim (t · c) buidhe 12:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm Talk 01:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.