Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Epsom

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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 31 October 2008 [1].

Operation Epsom[edit]

Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I really believe it largely meets all FA criteria, especially considering the fact that it passed an A-class review within the Military history WikiProject last month and we made major improvements since then. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I commented during the A-class review, and supported the article there. In my opinion, the article meets the requirements to be promoted to a featured article. The article went through a major transformation, and I don't believe it's missing in comprehensiveness. It is also very well written, and very well cited. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm dizzy from looking through the footnotes. Incredibly well-cited, all the footnotes check out alright in terms of format. Links all check out as well. Cam (Chat) 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments - I have only two minor comments in relation to this article: the Battle of Normandy links redirect into a Normandy Campaign disambiguation, and should probably be directed into the appropriate article instead. Also, under the "Commanders" section in the infobox, Richard O'Connor's prefix of "Sir" is added, yet this is not done for Montgomery or Dempsey who were also knights at this stage. The "Sir" prefix should be added to all three or removed entirely. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe this article meets the criteria. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why is that extra infobox there below the main one? I've never seen one like that before. Not a complaint so much as a query.
  • 'To stop the British offensive, during the evening Field Marshal Rommel ordered that all available units from II SS Panzer Corps were to be thrown into the fight.' - I don't like 'thrown into the fight', seems too casual.
Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The failure of II SS Panzer Corps to significantly reduce the British salient was of great concern to Willi Bittrich, and he ordered a resumption of the offensive during the night of 29–30 June, hoping to negate Allied air support' - Wouldn't mind a citation there.
    • Citation 125 covers that area, a duplicate could be placed at the end of that sentance if deemed nescessary?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see D'Este and Decision in Normandy cited anywhere; I know, I know, he's about as anti-Montgomery as you can get, but he does make some good points about the campaign. Skinny87 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have spoke at length in the discussion area regarding the inclusion of comments from Max Hastings and Carlo D'Este and have sort of planned out a slightly more indepth conclusion to the article then there is now, which would hopefully include some comments from the latter to balance things out a little further.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't this be withdrawn until that conclusion is added? Skinny87 (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean withdrawing a FAC which gained three supports in one day? --Eurocopter (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the information is as heavily cited as it is, I don't think leaving out one source is a particular issue in this case. Cam (Chat) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Skinny's comment has more to do with the fact that the conclusion will be expanded at a later date (or may be). JonCatalán(Talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a minor point, and D'Este isn't vital considering the other historians you have there. I won't oppose over this! Skinny87 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Most of your references are listed last name first, but there is Ashley Hart, which is alphabetized as H, but has Ashley first. Probably need to regularize that.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out withe link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the analysis section has now been considerably expanded. There are one or two missing books in the reference section, but these will be added shortly ;) Regards, EyeSerenetalk 09:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please follow query atWikipedia talk:Accessibility#Operation Epsom. Also, the dab finder in the toolbox at the top of the FAC shows several dab links that need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorted out disamb links. Just to note after reading your post via the link provided - technically there is only 2 info boxes and a campaign box - the later i have seen on practically every ww2 article inc FAC.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Tiger tank; the article states that production of the Tiger tank ceased in August 1944. This is theoretically inaccurate. The Tiger B started production in January 1944, and continued well after the end of production of the Tiger E. Although known as the "Tiger II", it's still technically a Panzerkampfwagen VI. Perhaps the footnote should specify that you are referring to the Ausf. E model, and not to the series as a whole. For further information, and a source, please see: Green, Michael & Brown, James, Tiger Tanks at War, p. 114 JonCatalán(Talk) 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, cheers. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Image:Epsom map.jpg needs a fair use rationale explaining why fair use is justified in this article; see WP:FURG for general information
  • Is Image:Jupiterpanzergrenadiers.jpg really necessary? It doesn't seem to add significantly to the article.
  • Same for Image:German 80mm Mortar.jpgGiggy (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can live with getting rid of the panzergrenadiers on Hill 112 however, other than attempting to "balanace" the article out photo wise, it is noted in the text that both sides threw in heavy arty barrages before attacks and we have a source that illustrates that the tenacious German resistance was not the sole cause for the high British losses - mortars where. That is a key piece of information. Imo that is why its jusitifed to use something to highlight that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you do keep the mortar image you'll need to expand on its FURG. Giggy (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest i had forgotten about those templates. I have now added it to the mortar photo - personally i feel it should be kept as its a decent medium to illustrate how lethal they were, while not distracting somewhere in the main text to make the point. As for the other photo if you feel it doesnt add anything i can live with that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All concerns here are resolved. Giggy (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 31 October 2008 (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_Epsom&oldid=1078804271"