Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Cobra

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Operation Cobra

I have overhauled this article few weeks ago and after a lot of further work I think it's ready for A-class. This article regarding one of the most important operations within Operation Overlord, would be my second major contribution to this topic. Even if there would be any POV and copy-editing issues, i'm willing to deal with them during this review. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the background section could still need a going over as we discussed on the discussion page but otherwise i think the article has progressed nicely.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more clear please? Is anything missing, or is something not covered enough? --Eurocopter (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be more American centric i.e. while we are given some information regarding D-Day, good information on Second Army's operations and the mulberrys there doesnt appear to currently be information covering what the yanks had been up to up to Cobra. I think there needs to be a simlar paragraph, like that for the British, covering the American actions in brief.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Everything is looking pretty good, for the most part. I made some alterations to the lead section, and a quick copyedit to the rest of the text. Images and sources look ok to me. The only major issue I see is the point raised by Enigma; the article needs some more background information on what the Americans were doing up until Cobra. Parsecboy (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i've expanded a bit on Cherbourg. However, please consult Operation Overlord and see that Cobra is the third event in which the Americans participated, after the Beaches and Battle of Cherbourg, which are both covered in the Background section. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Lazulilasher This is excellent work. I have a few minor comments before offering a support. I hope that I'll be able to help a bit!

• My main concerns revolve around prose/copyediting:
  • "On 25 July, units of the VII Corps began the initial two-division assault. Other First Army corps also mounted supporting attacks designed to pin German units in place." Try removing the redundant "also".
  • Again, watch for redundancies throughout the entire article. For example, this excerpt at the end of the "Background" section: "Towed barges and other loads (including 2.5 miles (4.0 km) of floating roadways for the Mulberry harbours) were lost; and no less than roughly 800 craft were left stranded on the Normandy beaches until the next spring tides in July,[20] while 500 were destroyed.[21]"
  • I would work on simplifying the language and sentences. For example, this sentence in the "Planning" section: "On 10 July General Bernard Montgomery, commander of all Allied ground forces in Normandy, held a meeting with Lieutenant-Generals Omar Bradley and Miles Dempsey, respectively the commanders of the United States First Army and the British Second Army, at his headquarters to discuss the next attacks to be launched by 21st Army Group,[29] following the conclusion of Operation Charnwood and the cancellation of the First Army's offensive towards St. Lô". Currently it is unwieldy for the casual reader.
    • Also, at the end of that paragraph, there is a sentence with a dangling semicolon and footnote. I'm not sure what the intention is, so I have not modified it.
  • "While the Allies were attempting to build-up a strong bridgehead in Normandy, in order to properly support and supply advancing troops, the deep water port of Cherbourg in the west and the historic town of Caen in the east represented the immediate main Allied objectives of D-Day." Could this sentence be refactored? It is difficult to understand as it stands.

All done - I think. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• References: for the most part, these are excellent. However
  • Pugsley, p. 47 was cited to 15 claims. Is this accurate?

Yes, it is accurate, as that page is a list of all participating units and commanders in the operation. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Again, this is generally good work. Attention needs to be spent on prose/copyediting; otherwise, all looks good. Don't hesitate to let me know if there's anything I could do. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • It needs to be written completely in American English, including the figures in the infobox.
  • It really needs a copyedit. A large part is filled with minor grammatical, and less minor stylistic errors, occasionally to the point of making a phrase not make any sense or appear to be self-contradictory.
  • WP:UNLINKDATES. I noticed this in the planning section, check to make sure it's applied everywhere.
  • In the initial attack section, link or spell out "ETO" to avoid jargon.

Otherwise it looks good, please deal with these and especially get it copyedited, thoroughly, and tell me and I'll come back and support it. – Joe Nutter 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think all your issues have been resolved, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now. – Joe Nutter 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - unbelievable improvement. The old article was biased, unreferenced, and sparse on finer details. The new article is comprehensive, unbiased (THANK-YOU!!!) heavily referenced. Cam ^(Chat) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support; per Cam and Joe. JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.