Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Epsom
- 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 Epsom[edit]
Another overhauled article, this time part of Operation Overlord. Even it is quite short, it should meet all criteria. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is very close to A-class standard but could do with a bit of fleshing out, mostly for comprehensiveness.
- An early "order of battle" section would be helpful, listing precisely the units involved on either side. It makes the narrative much easier to follow. (It would expand the article a little too :)
- Done, although i'm not very sure were this orbat ought to be placed and how its structure should look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seperate Order of Battle page has been created and the entire British order of battle bar one brigade has been added. See Operation Epsom order of battle. A link has been placed into the main article as well. I will be adding the German OOB tonight hopefully.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, although i'm not very sure were this orbat ought to be placed and how its structure should look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Situation and plans", Montgomery is mentioned without being introduced. He's not in the info box either. Perhaps expand to explain his role? Also in this section Do you mean "bridgehead" literally (in which case perhaps pinpoint it).
- Done, bridgehead also linked now. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps mention that the 1 and 12 SS Divisions were crack units? Perhaps explain the components of an SS division?
- Done
- Which British units supplied the barrage? Was it the usual combined artillery/armoured one?
- Unfortunately my source doesn't give such information, but most probably, the artillery barrage was executed by the supporting units of each division (for example, the 43rd division had three field royal artillery regiments). --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be able to provide this information later, ill check my sources and throw it into the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just updated the citation for this paticular issue. The citation states how many guns were used and from what Corp and each type of gun. I have the details for how many guns each division from VIII provided but i thought that may have been going over the top a little but i can that in if needed?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be able to provide this information later, ill check my sources and throw it into the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately my source doesn't give such information, but most probably, the artillery barrage was executed by the supporting units of each division (for example, the 43rd division had three field royal artillery regiments). --Eurocopter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before FAC, I would recommend a close copy-edit. Perhaps ask Cam or EyeSerene who worked on the closely-related Battle of Verrières Ridge for FAC?
- Good map, by the way.
- All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work, guys. I'd very much to see the dates delinked and the prose given a quick copy-edit by an uninvolved editor before I finally support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Although I'd say that this passes an A-class review, I think it's missing a degree of detail that could make it much better. For example, the operations are explained rather hastily. I think detail could make the article a much more interesting read. For example:
- Any more detail on the German and British order of battles? I.e. materiél, et cetera.
- The Order of Battle page contains information on what tanks each regiment was using and other little bits and bobs. While ill be able to provide the full order of battle for, i think its, 2 of the German divisions i dont think ill be able to provide the same level of detail i.e. what tanks each regiment etc were using.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not the same level of detail, but the current article is rather short (13,000 bytes), and so currently I don't think there is justification to split the order of battle into a different article except to make it look neater. So while the main article can go into greater depth, the order of battle article is good to have an off-hand "spreadsheet" of the information. That way the main article is expanded and there is a reason to have the second article. JonCatalán (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think that the addition of the whole orbat to the main article would be useful (as it currently consists of about 100 units). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not the main orbat, but adding more detail to the section in the main article. Currently, the article is very short. JonCatalán (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, well am just in the process of finishing off the German OOB. I appear to have the information in my sources at what each panzer regiment used and i have also put the same information for the british regiments. So the information is currently becomming available to transfer across to the main article as needed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not the main orbat, but adding more detail to the section in the main article. Currently, the article is very short. JonCatalán (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think that the addition of the whole orbat to the main article would be useful (as it currently consists of about 100 units). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not the same level of detail, but the current article is rather short (13,000 bytes), and so currently I don't think there is justification to split the order of battle into a different article except to make it look neater. So while the main article can go into greater depth, the order of battle article is good to have an off-hand "spreadsheet" of the information. That way the main article is expanded and there is a reason to have the second article. JonCatalán (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Order of Battle page contains information on what tanks each regiment was using and other little bits and bobs. While ill be able to provide the full order of battle for, i think its, 2 of the German divisions i dont think ill be able to provide the same level of detail i.e. what tanks each regiment etc were using.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think details of the offensive would be interesting to read, apart from the bare basics of what happened.
I also agree that the article probably needs a copyedit. But, good work insofar! JonCatalán (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If interested, Michael Reynold's Sons of the Reich: II SS Panzer Corps has a large section dedicated to Epsom. I think it's worth a look. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JonCatalán(Talk) 00:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If interested, Michael Reynold's Sons of the Reich: II SS Panzer Corps has a large section dedicated to Epsom. I think it's worth a look. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The info box does not show the correct allied strengths In the text it states The 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division would lead the attack and be supported by the 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, reinforced with the Guards Armoured Division's infantry brigade, and the 11th Armoured Division, with the 4th Armoured Brigade attached. - When you consider the strength of an British Armoured Division was one armoured and one infantry brigade theses extra brigades make a huge differance.
- will change the info box and add in the additional armoured brigade.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know its linked via HILL 112 but prehaps a mention of Operation Jupiter (1944) could be included.
- Once i get there, ill throw it in somewhere in the aftermath section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a comment but a question was it as a result of this battle that the 9th & 10th SS were moved to Arnham to recover ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- in short - no. :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Support Ironed out some of the ref formatting, should be ok now. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks good, a few more issues though:
- In the paragraph about Montgomery in the Planning section, you mention that Historians have argued... More clarification/less ambiguity possibly?
- I will attempt to address this later on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 44th Brigade, not facing the same problems as the 46th Brigade and advancing with there tank support, advanced facing little resistance until machine gun fire was encountered at a small stream; following which German resistance was allot more heavy." Forgive me if this is correct in British English, but in American English a lot is two words. "Allot" means to dispense or pass out, as in to allot the rations.
- Typo by myself which has been sorted out by another user.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to fix the dubious tag in there, at the end of the Main Attack section.
- I added the tag in as another user spotted that the last line is rather wrong. I will be aiming to address that in the upcoming days.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the paragraph about Montgomery in the Planning section, you mention that Historians have argued... More clarification/less ambiguity possibly?
However, besides those issues, I can find no major faults with the article that would block it from reaching A-class that have not been discussed above. Good work. Joe (Talk) 23:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.