Talk:Western Front tactics, 1917

Military history: Technology / British / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

New Zealand Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Page in progress

To do[edit]

fill in the first two headings.Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added bibliography.Keith-264 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unused reference[edit]

Lupfer,, T. (1981). The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Change in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War. Fort Leavenworth: U. S. Army Command and General Staff College.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

Amended Hohum's amendment[edit]

Also realised that using document titles has created headings with capitalisations where there shouldn't be any so will think about alterations to the other ones too.Keith-264 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are an improvement on mine. I have just reworded "open warfare" in the lead to maneuver warfare - please adjust that if I have the wrong end of the stick. (Hohum ^@) 22:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight change ("manoeuvre").;O)Keith-264 (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think "another bloodbath like 1916" should be changed to less flowery prose. (Hohum ^@) 13:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Put a map in but buggered up the formatting. I think it's OK now.Keith-264 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http/https[edit]

I've changed all the http's from http to https but notice that sometimes the address fails with https, if that happens, changing it back to http might help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wild abuse of the comma[edit]

I would never normally even comment on grammar on Wikipedia but the wild misuse of commas in this article, often randomly interspersed in sentences with no pattern or reason, makes this long and otherwise excellent article extremely hard to read. I might tackle it myself, but it seems a gargantuan task and I don't understand how it was ever this bad. They literally seem to be included at random. I include one example:

'The first days of the British Arras offensive, saw another German defensive debacle similar to that at Verdun on 15 December 1916, despite an analysis of that failure being issued swiftly, which concluded that deep dug-outs in the front line and an absence of reserves for immediate counter-attacks, were the cause of the defeat.'

This is two sentences that have been joined together and sprinkled with commas, making it juddering and laborious to read. Its not just that there are too many commas, its that they are included in the middle of phrases. Its throughout the entire article. the example above should be something like: 'The first days of the British Arras offensive saw another German defensive debacle similar to that at Verdun on 15 December 1916. This was despite an analysis of that failure being issued swiftly, which concluded that deep dug-outs in the front line and an absence of reserves for immediate counter-attacks were the cause of the defeat.'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.177.242 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just your opinion, man (with thanks to the Dude). Wiki doesn't like brackets so some sentence parts (like subordinate clauses) get comma'd instead. I think that there's nothing wrong with your alternative, that a few more commas, wouldn't put right. If you are interested, I'll go through the article with you word-for-word because my prose style has developed quite a bit since I wrote it. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]