Talk:British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eastfarthingan (talk) · Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan, I notice this is your first GA review. Thanks for volunteering to help with the backlog. I'm an experienced GA reviewer so feel free to ask me any questions you might have. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello (t · c) buidhe The article has been combed and nitpicked and I'm satisfied with the resulting actions taken by Hawkeye & by myself - would you be happy for me to pass this nomination? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic article to be reviewed over the week. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Any chance of coming up with a short conclusion in the lead with regards to an assessment on British logistics in this period?

  Y Sure. Added one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the background I've noticed that a flow of sentences need to be equal to each other. Some sentences are too short The bulk of the German forces were drawn towards the British sector While this sentence needs a couple of breaks. When the American Operation Cobra, launched on 25 July, succeeded in breaking through the German defences, six additional transport companies were shipped from the United Kingdom although there was already more than sufficient transport resources in the lodgement area in order to support a rapid advance, and plans were drawn up to establish an advanced base in the Le Havre area on the assumption that if the Germans were forced back from the Seine, they would try to establish a new front along the Somme

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure this sentence is relevant or if it is could it be expanded? To soften the blow to the British public, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, announced Montgomery's promotion to field marshal on the same date. What blow would that have been?

  It is just there simply to state Montgomery's rank. Some clever re-wording could remove it. I lifted the text from another article. As to the blow, that could be expanded into an entire article in its own right, but in a nutshell: Britain had been at war longer, had a self-image of being a great power although the reality was fading fast, and had a political need to adopt a high profile to ensure a say in the post-war world order. The British public had been through a lot with rationing and the blitz and all, read newspapers that touted the exploits of their troops and commanders, and regarded Montgomery as a national hero and a military messiah. This had operational and logistical implications, with the British Army occupying the seaborne flank. Partly this was the traditional British preoccupation with the sea, but it meant that the 21st Army Group had more experienced logistics staffs, and much easier logistics because it was advancing towards the ports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Y Re-worded to remove this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• On 16 September, eight American truck companies began running between Bayeux and Brussels to build up stocks for two American airborne divisions. Is this the Red Ball express or something separate to it?

  No, it is the so-called Red Lion express. It delivered supplies for the US airborne divisions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ok would it be better to place that term in the sentence/paragragh? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• In the Ports section - I think there should be wikilinks to the capture of the ports of Dieppe, Le Havre, Bolougne, Calais - they all have operational names too. eg Operation Undergo.

  Y This is why I don't like articles named after codenames; thet are dreadfully obscure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• The repairs done in Calais, Boulogne, Le Havre etc - were these done by the Canadians, British or French. There is the mention of the Royal Engineers in regard to Ostend. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Y The Royal Navy did the work offshore, and the Royal Engineers onshore. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• The port of Antwerp was opened to coasters that day and to and deep-draught shipping on 28 November. Looks like the sentence is missing a few words?

  Y Deleted "and". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Scheldt Dredging Control organisation was established & Some 1,031,000 cubic yards (788,000 m³) was dredged - I take it this is a Royal Navy unit & not 21st army group?

  Y A British Army unit. Inland Water Transport (IWT) was the responsibility of the Royal Engineers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• military labour had to be brought in. Was this from 21st army group itself?

  It was shared between the US COMZ and 21st Army Group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Antwerp repeatedly failed to meet its tonnage targets. was this because of the V-weapon attacks or some other cause?

  Y Partly, but the main problem was difficulty clearing the tonnage received. Added: "

• and mines laid by sank 67,626 deadweight tons (68,711 deadweight tonnes) more. - a missing word here?

  Y Added "them". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• 222 3-ton (3.4 m³) lorries, 12 10-ton (11 m³) lorries and 36 tippers. Can any of these types of lorries be named eg Bedford, Chevrolet?

  Sources don't say. Different units were likely to have different types. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• They were drawn from the Anti-Aircraft Command and command mixed transport units. Duplicate word?

  Can't see one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Five arrived by 26 September. Five came pre-loaded with petrol, five with supplies, and two came empty. Are these companies?

  Y Yes. Added "companies". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Road and railway traffic began more routine during October, Missing word?

  Y Changed "began" to "became" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• How many locomotives did the British ship over? I've just added another type that was used.

  Not sure. The thousand locomotives were delivered, but deliveries continued through 1945. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• 21st Army Group had made little use of resupply by air during the Normandy campaign, with the exception of the Polish 1st Armoured Division in August. Perhaps could expand a little on this? Would be interesting to see why this formation utilised air transport more than any other in 21st AG.

  Got themselves cut off during Operation Totalize, but the whole thing is outside the scope of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of Air section; were the RAF conducting all the flights?

  Yes. Provision was made for the USAAF to fly in supplies for the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, but this was not required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry to be picky - when starting another sub heading would you be happy to give full names of abbreviations again eg FMC, POL, DID in the 1st few paragraphs where relevant?

  MOS:1STABBR: Write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence. I can use the {{abbr}} to create a mouse-over. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• 'The working pipelines failed on 3 October' was this because of the storm?

  No. One failed due to be punctured by a rock outcropping, and the other due to a faulty coupling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• and the 21st Army Group Best to remove 'the'.

  Following the sources, "the" is always used except when in an adjectival form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok acknowledged.

• and foods impregnated with garlic, Perhaps reword this?

  What's the problem here? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  Impregnated.

  Y Linked to Wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• During the advance in September and October, the two armies.. These being 1st Canadian & 2nd British?

  Y Yes. Changed to say this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• and four of the forestry companies had to be used as infantry just a comment here- this sounds incredible. Would love more detail but perhaps in another article.

  Nos. 1, 9, 14, 25 and 27 Canadian Forestry Companies had been operating sawmills south-east of Names, in the St. Hubert area, and No. 16 Canadian Forestry Company at Spa, south-east of Liege, as part of the Canadian 7th Forestry District. (The four companies of the Canadian 8th Forestry District operated under the 21st Army Group.) They became caught up in the German offensive and held part of the front for a time. They were withdrawn to Brussels and had to abandon 21 sawmills. By the end of the year the ten companies had produced 8,949,659 board feet (21,118.84 m³) of sawn timber. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That is fascinating! That is definitely something for Mark Felton productions to make a video about. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Ardennes offensive prompted a request from the US Communications Zone on 26 December for an emergency delivery of 351 Sherman tanks clarify if this is to 21st Army Group?

  Y To the US 12th Army Group. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• The rate of hospital admissions rose from 22.4 per 1,000 personnel in October to 24.3 in November, and 28.0 in December. Was this becasue of the cold weather, casualties or disease? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Y Diseases. Elaborated on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• and over 1,0000 camps were built for anti-aircraft battery and searchlight positions. extra 0 there? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• their work was hampered by the shortage of coal and the availability of timber. Reason for this? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  This has already been explained above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• The outcome of how successful the logistics of the Siegrfied Line campaign could be explained. This may benefit from the conclusion in the lead to be expanded here in more detail - if possible. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just a couple of final points: might be worth mentioning about British manpower shortage at this time somewhere in the article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  I have a lot of information on the manpower shortages in the US, British and Canadian armies, but it doesn't really fall under logistics, being more about administration. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• This leads to the second point where supplies in the Italian campaign were subject to some shortage (manpower particularly) - Brian Robertson the Chief Administrative Officer at AFHQ struggled with ammunition shortages, it was so severe that rationing was introduced and offensives were put off until Spring 1945. This is mentioned in Maintenance in the Field, Volume II: 1943–1945. Might be worth mentioning this in terms of how this campaign (Normandy including) had adverse affects on others like Italy. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Y Added. Do you have this book? It is very rare, and it took me a long time to find my copy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sadly not I picked this from Brian Robertson's wiki article which mentions this in detail. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Oh. I wrote that article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  I have expanded this. It took me a while to find out what had happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• The article has been combed and nitpicked, and I'm satisfied with the final results I'm happy to pass it - just waiting on a response from experienced GA reviewer Buidhe to see how my first GA review has gone. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Double-check by Buidhe

• Eastfarthingan, I think you did a great job reviewing this article and giving feedback to improve it. However, there are some aspects of the GA criteria that aren't mentioned in this review. For example, I don't see any mention of evaluating either text or media for copyright issues. I would try to mention each aspect of the criteria in your review; one easy way to avoid missing any of them is using one of the GAN templates. I can also help with any of the more technical aspects (image copyright can be tricky, although Hawkeye is usually very good at using free images). (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for your advise Buidhe, I will list those from the templates soon. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  All the images are appropriately licensed. All the photographs were taken by British military photographers, hence Crown Copyright, which expired after 50 years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you need to follow the instructions on how to pass an article. (WP:GAN/I#PASS) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)