Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Verrières Ridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 13 June 2008 (→Battle of Verrières Ridge: Resp to KnightLago's quick comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Battle of Verrières Ridge

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle_of_Verri%C3%A8res_Ridge/}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle_of_Verri%C3%A8res_Ridge/}}

Toolbox

Self-Nomination If you're outside of Canada, you probably have very little recognition of this battle. In fact, many major D-Day Historians (Carlo D'Este, Dan Van-Der-Vat), go into very little detail concerning this conflict. That said, this article has been in the works since April of 2007. It passed its GA in April 2008, underwent a Peer-Review shortly after, passed its A-Class Review on May 24, & has undergone significant copyediting, both for MoS & for Prose. Having spent the last 14 months working on this article, I feel that it is finally sufficient for the title & rating of Featured Article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • En dash for "[[July 19]], [[1944]] - [[July 25]], [[1944]]" in the infobox
  • "July 25-26, 1944" — en dash
  • "front.[18][3] Although" — refs in ascending order
  • "Historiography and Controversy" → "Historiography and controversy"
Hope that's sufficient

Gary King (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The Canada at War reference is lacking a publisher.
I'll see if I can find that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is "Juno Beach Centre" referencing? Is it the museum? The exhibits? I'm unclear on this.
The Juno Beach Centre is a Canadian-run museum in Courseulles-sur-Mer (Normandy) along the Normandy beaches. It has extensive exhibits pertaining to both Canada's involvement in the Battle of Normandy, as well as the drives through Belgium & Holland. I took a lot of notes from the exhibits when I was there in July 2007, then used some of that in citing some of the information within the article. Hope that clarifies. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urf. Generally we want published information that's reasonably easily accessible. This one, I've never run into it, honestly. I'm inclined to think it's probably not a reliable source, as wikipedia defines it. I'm not saying that the museum isn't reliable, it's that we're relying on your notes (which are unpublished) from the site, do you see the difference? I'm willing to let others decide on this one though. Any suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know for a fact that the Juno Beach Centre has an excellent website with tons of information on all of their exhibits (I've used it for several other articles). If I am able to locate the URL of the site with this specific exhibit on it, would I be able to us that? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or.....I can just remove the refs. Both of them were double-cited, I don't see lack of verifiability being a huge issue (considering I've double-cited & triple-cited everything that could be challenged) Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly to the MLU refs (as mentioned below), most of the WWII.ca cites have been double-cited. One of them is cited alongside Pg. 222 of Bercuson. As for the other one, I can easily add in a ref from several of my other sources (I should have known that 109 refs weren't nearly enough). Hope that's sufficient. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and double ref. Can't hurt! (Is there an award for the most refs per kb of prose?) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Now, that came up in a previous review, when we (we being Eyeserene & I in June 2007) debated the suitability of the MLU source. We both noticed a substantial amount of bias within the page itself. You'll also notice that only casualty statistics are cited using that source. In addition, all usages of that source have been double or triple-cited with other references (Ref A is double-cited with Terry Copp 1999a, while Ref B is triple-cited with the BBC-site & pg. 223 of Bercuson). If you wish, I can easily remove the MLU cite, as I have already cited both those figures with other sources. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you remove the two iffy sites, and link them as external links, which gives folks more information, without having to use dodgy refs. Both sites seem to be non-commercial, or at least as non-commercial as museums get. But if others object to that idea... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out (except for the one above) with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I've just expanded the lead a bit and done various other minor CE tweaks. Good article, describing the little-known battle itself and the ensuing recriminations. (Disclosure: I copy-edited this a couple of weeks back so I'm not entirely neutral.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am Canadian and I do remember this...And so far I've seen nothing out of place yet. I'll post any comments if I find any faults. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Still looks as good as it did when I read it last. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gives a full account of the battle and the controversy that surrounds it. Sourcing seems good, and it reads well. Disclosure: I've been working on and off with Cam on this article for a while, and I passed its GA review back in April. EyeSerenetalk 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding images

  • Image:Verrieres-under-fire.jpg (the lead photo) seems low-quality for the lead photo in a featured article. Is there any possibility it can be replaced, or barring that, cleaned up? This is some distracting discoloration along the right-hand edge and, to a lesser degree, in the upper left corner.
  • Image:Geography of Verrieres-1.5.jpg - is this a scan, or was it made by the uploader from scratch? It appears to be a scan, based on the artifacts in the upper left and the fact that it is slightly misaligned. If a scan, the map needs a source and its copyright status specified. That aside, the misalignment needs to be fixed, and the image should be in PNG or SVG format per WP:IUP#Format and WP:PIFU. The white area surrounding the the map, and the caption "South of Caen" should also be cropped out per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text.
  • Image:Operation Spring.png is a beautiful user-created battle map - I notice EyeSerene is commenting here - would it be possible to have a version of this map without the caption in the upper left per WP:PIFU#Replace captions in the image with text? Not only does this satisfy the image guideline, but it will facilitate use of the map in other languages' Wikipedia articles about this battle.

Kelly hi! 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes: I left some inline queries and edit summaries about cleanup needs. Sample prose reveals repetitive phrasing:
  • The accepted toll for Operation Atlantic is put at 1,349 total casualties.[1] Of these approximately 300 were fatal.[2] However, the number of soldiers wounded and captured was significantly higher.[2] The casualty figures for Operation Spring are also commonly accepted to be within the vicinity of 500 killed and 1000 wounded or captured.[3][4] Of these, some 315 casualties out of 325 soldiers were taken by the Royal Highland Regiment of Canada, the heaviest Canadian casualty rates of the entire Normandy conflict.[5] If the casualty figures for Atlantic and Spring are taken to be correct, the total casualties for Canadian forces amount to approximately 2,800 casualties. Of these, 800 were fatal.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll get to work on that (thanks for pointing it out). I also fixed the image issue in Historiography that you outlined in the edit summary. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "More recently" is any better, it has the same problems. Maybe reword the sentence some how? KnightLago (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does "since the end of World War II, the attack has become one of the most contentious & controversial events in Canadian Military History" sound any better? Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at pulling this round a bit too. I've made the link between cause (first sentence of third lead par: questionable decisions, high casualty rates) and effect (second sentence of last lead par: debate and controversy) more explicit. This, I think, makes the logical connection between the two sentences stronger and sidesteps the issues raised by "more recently" and "over the years". Does this work for you? --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Copp1999a was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Bercuson222 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Zuehlke168 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference O'Keefe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Bercuson, p. 225.
  6. ^ Jarymowycz (1993), p. 81.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Verrières_Ridge&oldid=218994603"