Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bombardment of Cherbourg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

The article was nominated for FA out of sequence, when it failed the suggestion was made to request an A-Class review. Collaborative editors have subsequently made copy edits. The the article is evolving from a stub describing naval activity only, expanded to encompass the combined operations that it was -- infantry, navy, air -- in support of division-level infantry capture of Cherbourg. It makes the distinction between heavy gunnery effectiveness on fixed targets to disable them until capture, versus contributions by destroyer fire support directed by army spotters. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • The lead doesn't summarize the article. There's a lot of leeway ... see various A-Class and Featured articles ... but not this much leeway.
  • "Following the initial beachhead lodgment in Europe on D-Day, as the Allied push east stalled around at Caen, the 1st U.S. Army, VII U.S. Army Corps, was to turn west": There are several things that make the time sequence harder to follow than we like to see at A-class. Don't say "Following ... D-Day" if you're really talking about something that happened weeks later, don't say "as" if you mean "after", and don't say the corps "was to turn west", as if you're talking about the planning stages, if you're telling us about what happened when they actually did turn west. (None of those things is fatal to the reader's understanding by itself, but together, they frustrate the readers' attempts to get a sense of the time frame.)
  • "Cherbourg, the major port facility": the major port facility in Cherbourg
  • "To support their advance": pronouns should usually refer to nouns in the same sentence, but never in the previous paragraph.
  • "COMBINED TASK FORCE 129 ...": People will sometimes put lists, such as orders of battle, in one of the last sections, but inserting a list in the middle of an encyclopedia article makes it look ... like it's not an encyclopedia article. (This is discussed at WP:EMBED.) Also, avoid all capitals in prose per WP:ALLCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, all items I can act on. It's especially important to avoid stylistic conventions in the sources which are not applicable on WP.
Another editor collaboratively uncapitalized Army and Navy throughout the article as found in both army and navy sources, because they are common nouns at Wikipedia...I take it that would also be the WP:MILITARY punctuation convention for the marine corps and air force as well.
Likewise, although I had technically used "comprised" correctly as sourced at Talk, it seems it is reverted without discussion so often that trying to maintain it would simply make the article unstable in the face of well intentioned editors without a grasp of the term's military usage in sources and as explained by modern linguists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My sympathies. I see "comprise" isn't in the article now, which is probably a good solution. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, it seems to me that the Bombardment of Cherbourg#Destroyers section should be split off into another stub or list article. I'm not sure mechanically how to do that in conformance with WP:MILITARY convention. It is clearly related, but only tangentially to the main subject of the article [naval] Bombardment of Cherbourg, however personally interested I may be in the WWII destroyers my father served in, Atlantic and Pacific. It would be a shame to lose the Table of Organization by destroyer division which accounts for their losses, but as an editor/writer, I really am interested in perfecting Bombardment of Cherbourg. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency needed: Ninth Air Force, IX Army Air Force
  • Consistency needed: 18 June, June 22
  • German ranks probably need translation.
  • In general, the narrative jumps around a bit. I copyedited per my copyediting disclaimer, down to Battle groups 1 and 2. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency now throughout for 'IX Army Air Force' and date 'June 22'. I am an English editor using English sources, so I used spelling of German ranks used in sources as they are found in English editions, without trying to translate them into their disparate US or British equivalents. Is there a standard reference in use, or consensus translation tables in a Wikipedia list article?
Other sources don't always follow Wikipedia policies, such as WP:UE (Also see WP:Use English. These pages are specifically talking about using terms in page titles, but have applicability to page content as well.) Wikipedia articles do a good job of translating ranks. It's fine to list the German as well, if many relevant sources list the German, which is often true for WWII history. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I've expanded the introduction with two paragraphs at your editorial direction. Is there an example of an A-Class WWII battle that I can refer to, so I can have a better over-all picture of the standard in practice? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At for instance User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history, click on "A" or the number beside it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found Bombardment of Papeete using English titles for the German commander. Morison titles von Schlieben both as "Generalleutenant" and "General", so I’ve chosen Morison’s "General" in English, so as to follow the scholar, and not my own untutored original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All copyedit suggestions are met to the best of my ability. The drive on Cherbourg was intended immediately at invasion just as the drive on Caen, but the passage has now been rewritten so as to narrow the article's scope as you suggested to avoid confusing the reader. The introduction is expanded to align with A-class articles. What's the next step? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: G'day, interesting topic/article. Thanks for your work on it. I made a couple of tweaks to the article, so please check you are happy with my changes (if not, please feel free to revert). Additionally, I have the following suggestions:

  • I think the prose probably still needs a little work. For example watch out for clarity of expression: "General Pete Quesada of the Ninth Air Force flew Liberators..." This makes it sound like Quesada flew them personally, when he probably just commanded them. Is there a way that this could be made a little clearer?
  • measurements including distances should be converted where possible to help readers not familiar with some measurements (for example "15,000 yards"). I performed an example edit on the article to illustrate how to do this.
  • in the Battle groups 1 and 2 section, something like this might make the paragraph a little smoother: "The task force was divided into two divisions: Group 1 under Deyo and Group 2 under Admiral C.F. Bryant. Deyo's Group 1 consisted of Tuscaloosa, Quincy, Nevada, HMS Glasgow and five destroyers: Ellyson (flag), Hambleton, Rodman, Emmons, Murphy, and Gherardi, and it was assigned to bombard Cherbourg, the inner harbor forts and the area west towards the Atlantic. Bryant's smaller Group 2 was to take "Target 2", the Hamburg Battery. Located near Fermanville, inland from Cape Levi, six miles east of Cherbourg, Group 2 was made up of the aging Texas, Arkansas, and the destroyers Barton (flag), O'Brien, Laffey, Hobson (pennant), and Plunket. Nevada in Group 1 was to use its major battery to silence "the most powerful German strongpoint on the Cotentin Peninsula".[3] Then Group 2 would complete the destruction, and pass westward to join Deyo's group."
  • where you use quotations in the body of the article, in most cases they should be attributed in text. For example, "According to Smith, "in all cases, it was the responsiblity of the ship to determine..."
  • watch out for duplication. For instance, this seems to duplicate what is said earlier in the paragraph: "This was possible because each bombarding ship was provided with an army officer who tracked positions of Allied forces ashore"
  • a couple of paragraphs seem to be uncited. For instance, the first and second last in the Combined Task Force section, and the paragraph starting "In the World War II U.S. Navy destroyer..." and then the discussion of the ships in that section onwards
  • could this be clarified: "All planned long-range shots on seaward batteries were cancelled" (why was this done?)
  • "Destroyer Emmons..." (and other similar constructions) seem a bit awkward. Perhaps "The destroyer Emmons..." (etc.) might be smoother;
  • in the References section, I'd advise against using constructions like "op cit". While they work in paper-based work, on Wikipedia where references can be deleted rather quickly, they are not really applicable. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the critique. I need to translate out of the source conventions found in naval sources, "Destroyer Emmons"... I wrote drafts from sources, so I may have lost citation coverage with later paragraphing. This should be easily remediable.
Cancellation of long range shots on seaward batteries was due to additional care to avoid friendly fire casualties. The army did not have confidence in naval target acquisition at that time. At the end of the engagement, the cruisers on leaving the immediate area continued an extended barrage as they set out to sea since the army command was more confident in naval gunnery accuracy. I remember clearly from the sources there were investigations after friendly fire incidents in the initial phases of Normandy Invasion. My impression is generally, during infantry support missions, ships navigated closer in the mine fields, bombers flew lower to better acquire targets, artillery units detached forward spotters, infantry detached liaisons to ships, army air spotters adjusted naval gun fires -- Supporting arms took more losses for the cost benefit to avoid friendly fire losses.
This was important to me personally to expand out of the stub so I could read it to my father, who was on the destroyer which ran reconnaissance under the Cherbourg guns provoking fire so an army air pilot could map the German battery positions. The ship not only constantly changed course radically, it also varied speed, but the Germans were still able to bracket the ship with fires. He said that the German slave labor sabotaged their ammunition, and that is why the ships which were holed during the Bombardment of Cherbourg were not sunk. But other than a British Admiral's tangential assessment that close in operations were not a good idea, I have not found a source to confirm my father's recollection.
He was really active in publication and video documentary about Normandy before he died. He had some stories about destroyer picket duty off Okinawa, but he really did not have a lot to say about the Pacific island mop up operations in the last phase. Although grateful for mutton from Australia for the duration, he did not eat "lamb" for decades after the war.
I very much would like to write in such a way that the complexity of the inter-service operation is conveyed. In a small scale combat example from the Vietnam era, I personally have heard an army helicopter pilot in distress receive a "green deck" to land on a ship and then reply "all the decks are grey", with tragic results. I wonder whether an hour's video orientation course in ship operations might have helped during some All Officer's squadron meeting.
Ah yes, op. cit. a couple years ago that convention was still an acceptable alternative in the MOS. This is an early effort on my part, but I still do not have my Wikipedia sea legs on referencing. I know that there is a convention which renders a,b,c Smith, John. "The Book Title" ISBN paging convention...but I am not fluent yet I am afraid. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I generally use Template:Sfn to help format refs in articles I write, but this is not a requirement. There are many ways to format references in a manner that is acceptable at A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment/suggestion: I had another look at it this morning and I think that it might make sense to restructure the article a little. This might help with the narrative flow a little. I'd suggest the following structure: Background (level 2 header), "Assigned forces" (level 2 header) with various level 3 headers such as "Battle Groups 1 and 2", "Air support" and (maybe) "Fire control measures", then another level 2 header called "Bombardment", with two level 3 headers "Initial bombardment" (reusing the content in the current "Fire support areas" section) and "Exenstion to the bombardment". Finally, you could finish the article with a level 2 header called "Aftermath" (or Outcomes if you prefer). Not sure about where "Destroyers" would fit in as currently it doesn't seem to fit within the narrative in its current format (it could potentially be included in Assigned forces or Bombardment depending on what is included in it). Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the proposed restructure as it highlights the joint nature of the enterprise and the coordination achieved.
The destroyer section is almost like a table of equipment rather than the task force table of organization. Should it have it's own stub article, WWII Atlantic destroyers?
The introduction has been expanded to better hit on the main points covered in the article, whereas before it was too abbreviated per the previous critique. Does it suffice?
Thanks again, lots to work on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up comments: G'day, this evening I had a go at copy editing the article a bit more. In the process I moved some of the text around as per the above suggestion. Please review my changes and adjust if you they are not to your liking. I also have a few more suggestions:
    • Regarding the lead, I think it has a decent level of coverage now, but it might pay to have someone else also look at it;
    • Regarding the Destroyers section, I think it would be a good idea to move the majority of the information out of the article as it seems to probably place undue focus on the topic;
    • the See also section should probably be reduced. Where you have already mentioned a ship in the body of the article, the link should be included at first mention, and then there is no requirement to add it to the See also section;
    • I've added a "citation needed" tag where I think a reference is required. If you can, please add a citation where I've marked;
    • if possible, I would like to see more coverage of the air cover and the anti-submarine/minesweeping operations;
    • is there any information about casualties amongst the ships' crews that could be added?
    • I suggest splitting the footnotes and citations into separate sections in the references. For instance, the way in which it is done on USS Monitor is a possible solution (although it isn't the only one).
    • be careful with forcing the size of the images, it might be better just to use the "thumb" parameter, rather than forcing the sizes (e.g. "360 px"), as this can create some issues on different sized computer screens;
    • Anyway, that is probably all I have. I will come back later to see how you are getting on, but unfortunately after next Saturday I will be offline for about three weeks, so I might not respond promptly. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

  • von Schlieben was a Generalleutnant per this (among many other sources) which was equivalent to a US Army Major general per Stein (1984) The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939–45 p. 295. I know he wasn't Waffen-SS, but the relevant page of Stein provides Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS equivalents in the US Army. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second checklist update[edit]

Generalleutnant is added, Destroyer section deleted, and Morison p. 198 citation provided as requested. See also is reworked, new section Ships assigned.
Another editor provided the specific a/c types without references, should they be deleted, or is it common knowledge which aircraft were assigned to each squadron? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded narrative on minesweepers, Bibliography section, separated notes from references.
General histories in Google searches for IX Army Air Force or IX TAC gloss over air spotters for sea bombardment coordination, although it was mentioned in dispatches from the German commander. The focus is generally on providing support to the infantry, and the coordination was not yet perfected. Putting the same radios in aircraft and ships was later adapted to putting the same radios in aircraft and tanks for better spotter and direct air support.
Still searching for naval casualties during the bombardment. Crews were at battle stations in condition Z during combat operations, so although several ships were holed, casualties were reported as light. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Key:

Normal text: Fine
Italic text: Minor issues.
Bold text: Major issues

Some problems, I think only the Morton Deyo image is particularly worrisome, though. It's by far the worst documented... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of Cherbourg pics. Thanks for the assist. A couple of observations on the three problematical photos for A-class status.
In the first portrait photo for John Plagis in a Featured Article, there is an author, and the date is “created: between 1939 and 1945”. Is that the convention which should be uniformly adopted for WWII photos which are otherwise undated? In the second portrait, the photographer is identified only as “Royal Air Force official photographer”, which is to say unknown. The photo is “Created: between 1943 and 1944”, which seems reasonable even if the photo is not dated, since both men were alive and stationed at the same place during that time frame.
For Deyo, the image is on wikimedia commons, The source is the United States Navy, “This file is a word of a sailor of employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as a part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.” This is not a more vague source than is required for Featured Articles, generally given the example this month, naming the author as "official Navy photographer” should suffice. The date span is 1943-1945, given his promotion to admiral with a sea command. Those amendments are in place.
For Quesada, the image is on wikipedia, a candidate for wikimedia commons. “This image is a work of a U.S. Army employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.” The original image was captured from the Air Force Association webpage. I’ve sent an email to ask for updated URL for the photo made in the Bombardment of Cherbourg time frame. Another photo as a formal portrait is available at Boeing Company website, but it would not fit in with the other two period photos, and it is not open sourced.
The template for sourced documents from Archievesnormandie uses the term “undefined”. I am not acquainted with the procedure for modifying templates, but the Summary now shows the Author as “unknown” per Talk suggestion. I have to say I am somewhat surprised, Is perfecting photo files beyond Featured Article photo elements a part of an article gaining A-class status? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did this review identically to how I'd do an FAC review. The problem is that, without a source, and without any additional information, it's hard to check they're Army photographs, for example, and, for that matter, images uploaded in 2007 were encouraged to be fairly low resolution. We've since realised that's a mistake. With a source, we might do better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Portcherbourg, the source site is now dead, which I suppose can excuse the lack of identifier... however, it's not a very good photo. What do you think of http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NBQFEe9lExQ/TlGpnRu0TII/AAAAAAAAAO4/GZGr4zoV6rU/s1600/eleanor%252C+cherbourg.jpg from http://www.thecascadiacourier.com/2011/08/girl-and-fish.html and dated 1944 and US Army photo? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can rely on the previous editor's tags that the photos were official work of navy and army air photographers. I think that it would be interesting to reconstruct the sourcing, does that mean putting the review of the Bombardment of Cherbourg article on hold?
Okay. The linked photo is certainly of the place and of the time. But it lacks the panoramic view showing the topography from land looking seaward to pair with the panoramic aerial photo from sea looking landward on either side of the map as a visual orientation to the place. It is in one sense, a duplicate of the effectiveness of the naval bombardment showing the disruption of a casemate battery further down in the article, were it subject of naval gunnery.
But the civilian building was not a designated target of the naval bombardment, I cannot discern it was indeed naval gunnery which did the damage; the walls are still standing, that would argue that it was not. That unknown to me seems more problematical for inclusion in the article than the specific authorship of a photo. The photo looks like a well focused photo of any bombed-out civilian building in France, 1944-1945, from aerial bombing or artillery shelling. I do not understand how it helps the reader to visualize the terrain pictured in the centered map of Cherbourg port, which is what the existing photo was chosen to do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I found the larger picture that Deyo’s cropped image was taken from, at WWII Archives.net, it is of Gen. Eisenhower, Adm. Kirk and Adm. Deyo aboard the USS Tuscaloosa. The citation is from National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland (80-G-231642). I rummaged around in the search feature at the National Archives, but could not readily find the item. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Further Google search yields the Naval Historical Center on the web at .history.navy.mil/photos/images/, describing the photo Photo #: 80-G-231642. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. Army (left), with Rear Admiral Alan G. Kirk, USN (center) and Rear Admiral Morton L. Deyo, USN — On board USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37) on 19 May 1944, during preparations for the Normandy invasion. — Official U.S. Navy Photograph, now in the collections of the National Archives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: I think these image issues should be sorted by FAC; we can probably let this slide at A-class a bit. I'll be back a bit later on to help do the documentation. @Dominic: is the Wikipedian at Residence in NARA, and can probably say about the Deyo pic more, if need be, but I believe the 80-G-231642 is a reference number, so that's probably enough documentation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a NARA-specific identifier. 231642 is the number on the individual photo, and 80-G signifies which series it belongs to: "General Photographic File of the Department of Navy, 1943 - 1958". The original physical print should be able to be retrieved with that identifier, but it appears it has not been individually described in the catalog yet. The scans circulating on the Internet were likely produced by public researchers who came across the photo in the archives themselves. We could potentially rescan an original if requested, but I can't make any promises. Dominic·t 20:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dominic! That clarifies things a lot. Honestly, if it's only being used to identify Deyo and maybe Kirk, and the full image isn't being used on Wikipedia yet, I'm not sure it's worth putting you to the effort. If you can easily grab a better image of Deyo, then that might be good, but otherwise, don't worry! =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Bombardment_of_Cherbourg&oldid=1138360842"