Talk:Liberation of Arnhem

Comment

First try at creating an artical. Please review and advise/ revise as required! This seems to be a difficult subject to find further info on. Motorfix 17:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Job!

The article reads well; I made some changes which I can discuss if you're concerned about them - stuff like changing "Holland" to "The Netherlands", also removed some stuff - you mentino the Royal Canadian Artillery but the corps artillery also included, IIRC, some British batteries, so seems unfair to mention just the Canadian guns. Overall, excellent job - I especially like the well researched photos.Michael Dorosh 18:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Tank Photo

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawiki-1.5.5/index.php?title=Unit_Signs_-_Armoured_Divisions

The tank in the photo is in the markings of Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) and the cap badge in front of the monument is also to the LdSH. Where was this photo found? Do we know it is in Arnhem? Michael Dorosh 20:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I attatched link to the photo in the image file. I know this tank is in Arnhem as I was there at this very same tank about a month ago! I have a photo of my own except I'm in it. Copywrite checks out okay as well. Thanks for the edits and feedback! Motorfix 03:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reworking

As anyone who knew this page before can probably see, I've totally redone the article. I've added an infobox, relevant images and a few more references. I went through each para of the old text and basically expanded it, although in doing so they've pretty much become re-written (but the old stuff is still there in a way!). A lot of the past article was factually incorrect (mainly the units involved) and written in an essay style, so I hope this improves it on that front. Hope you like it Ranger Steve (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liberation of Arnhem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. My main issue with the article is the number of typos and punctation errors dispersed throughout. I recommend a Level 1 Copy-edit. You can do this yourself or have someone else look over the article closely to tidy it up.
   2. The lead should be expanded to summarize the entire article. See WP:LEAD.
   3. Is there any way a chart could be added to the Allied forces section? This would help show which units were subordinate to which corps. I understand that the German order of battle was convoluted so this is not neccessary for that section.
   4. Section Headers should not contain "The." Numbers in the subheads are also frowned upon.
   5. The "Losses" section is short enough that it can just be folded into the "Aftermath" section. At the same time, I would recommend the Aftermath section, which is also short, could be a subhead in the Battle section. This would help reduce the number of short headers in the article.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Only one ref issue, which is below.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass No problems there.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Not Yet

   1. "to the joy of the local population" - this is an opinion which is not neutral. It should be reworded and referenced specifically to make the article more even.
5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold until a few issues are resolved. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I've started working through it.

1. 1. I've found an embarrassing number of mistakes. Are there any other specific ones you can see?
   2. Done. Any good?
   3. An Order of Battle? Good idea, will get onto it.
   4. Done
   5. That can be done, but just thought I'd try the layout there at the moment. This way it allows 4 main headings - Background, Preperation, Battle and Aftermath. What do you think?

I've removed the local population bit as it didn't really fit into the slightly remodeled sentence.

Cheers! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, I don't see any other major problems with the article. It now meets the GA criteria, according to my interpretation of them. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 14:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Quick Anger

Andrew Holnorn, author of 'The 56t Infantry Brigade and D-Day: An independent Infantry Brigade and the campaign in North West Europe 1944-45', notes on p. 206 of his work that Operation Quick Anger was a contingency plan in which allied forces would occupy Arnhem in the event of a German withdrawal. Somewhat counters the version in the article that notes 'Quick Anger' was a revised 'Anger'. CheersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Does it? Sorry, but where in the article does it say that Quick Anger was a revised Anger? The article says Quick Anger was "an immediate crossing of the Nederrijn near Oosterbeek as soon as the river was reached, if the situation allowed it", and that's from p567 of the official Canadian history. I've just finished reading Alexander McKee's book "Race for the Rhine Bridges" which says much the same thing. 'Situation allows it' may be optimum crossing conditions or even of course a German withdrawal. I don't think Holnorn's version counters anything. Ranger Steve ^Talk 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you are correct it does not say it was a revised plan. It may have just been the way i have read it, this is the bit that has confused me somewhat:

"The original (February) plan for Operation Anger had called for an immediate crossing of the Nederrijn near Oosterbeek as soon as the river was reached, if the situation allowed it (Operation Quick Anger). Alternatively, if the German defenses were considered too strong, a better prepared crossing downstream at Renkum could be made (Operation Anger).[13]"

Reading through the section of the OH that you linked to you are quite correct in suggesting that Holborn and Stacey agree on the details, i think it was just the way i read it initially that through me off.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First Battle of Arnhem

The notion "First Battle of Arnhem" is in the Dutch historiography in use for the fights near and in Arnhem during the liberation of the city from the French occupation late November 1813 by a Prussian force supported by Russian Cossacks. In fact was the battle during September 1944 in the history of the city the Second Battle of Arnhem and Operation Quick Anger the third --145.53.192.102 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

minor change should 'advanced west' be 'advanced east'?

In "Allied crossing of the Lower Rhine", the first para says "21st Army Group then advanced rapidly into north-west Germany. Whilst the British 2nd Army advanced west, General Henry Crerar's First Canadian Army was given the task of liberating the Netherlands."

From a general look at the geography here, I believe British 2nd Army were advancing east into north-west Germany. Reviewing the page for Operation Plunder and Western Allied invasion of Germany seems to bear this out. Shandono (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)