Talk:Operation Chastity

B class review

C class. This article looks very good. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed. Djmaschek (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The last (cited) sentence in the introduction is one writer's opinion. It might be better not to cite it and to write, "In one general's opinion, the failure to implement Operation Chastity contributed to the elimination of the possibility of Germany surrendering in 1944. Other writers disagreed with this argument." Under Debate on Operation Chastity, the various opinions are stated and cited, so no citations are needed in the introduction.
• MILHIST B class requires that all text below the introduction needs to be cited. For a list of uncited text, see below.
  • Background, paragraph 1, sentence 2.
  • Background, paragraph 3.
  • Plan, paragraphs 1 and 5.
  • Events, paragraphs 1 and 5.
  • Cancellation and Aftermath, paragraph 1, sentence 2.
  • Cancellation and Aftermath, paragraph 6.
  • Debate on Operation Chastity, paragraphs 1, 2, and 6.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a lot of citations. Could you confirm if these are adequate? Where a paragraph of a couple sentences is all from the same reference I've just cited at the end of the paragraph. Can you tell me if this is adequate, or every sentence needs to be cited?--Shimbo (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shimbo: It is not necessary to cite every sentence, unless the source changes. Please do not use back-to-back identical citations. It is just a waste of your time and does not look good on the page. I see a couple places where you did that and I will fix them. Here's an example.

• NO: Sentence 1.[1] Sentence 2.[1] Sentence 3.[1]
• YES: Sentence 1. Sentence 2. Sentence 3.[1]

Okay. Thanks for letting me know.--Shimbo (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking real good now, in my opinion. @Djmaschek: since you did the initial assessment, do you have any objections to b1=yes and consequently B-class given the changes? I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure what the standard procedure is here and I don't want to step on any toes :) -Ljleppan (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, 1) Overall really nice work, 2) I made the following observations regarding the infobox: -Ljleppan (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Result should be only either "X victory" (without qualifiers), "Inconclusive" or "See <section>", as per Template:Infobox military conflict. Consider replacing with e.g. "See {{Pslink||Cancellation and Aftermath}}"
• "Territorial changes" is meant for, and reads like, describing territorial changes resulting from the operation. But when the second sentence in the lede starts with "It was not implemented..", how could have the operation resulted in any territorial changes?
• Similarly, the meaning of "dates" is unclear in relation to both the "it was not implemented" lede and the "Territorial changes" line: are these dates for when the planned operation would have happened; or dates when preparations for the operation was conducted; or something completely different? Consider omitting from the infobox, if these are difficult to explain in it.
• Perhaps Template:Infobox military operation would be a better fit?

Thank you for your useful points. I'll change the result to "See <section>". My thinking on your points two and three is that the operation was 'sort of' implemented, in that according to all the logistics focussed sources (Ruppenthal, the PhDs etc) the strategic reason for the liberation of Brittany was to enable Operation Chastity. So, the US Third Army started implementing the early stages/prerequisites of the operation but then the divisional commander and the corps commander, who either didn't understand the point of the operation or didn't agree it was a good use of their commands (or, according to Mack, were glory hunters with their eyes on Paris) failed to complete those early stages. So, Operation Chastity kind of failed, but so early that it was also kind of 'unimplemented'. I'm not sure how to show that in the infobox (other than the way I did). Perhaps there's a different way of putting it that makes it clearer? I'll look at the military operation infobox. As a general comment, there's a slight balance problem because most of the sources that mention Chastity are logistics focussed and regard Operation Chastity as a strategic necessity and its failure as a tragedy, whereas more general histories regard the entire Brittany operation as a sideshow aimed at bottling up a flank and hardly mention it. So they're not really talking about the same thing, leading to the excoriating opinions of the logisticians being only weakly/tangentially opposed by the general histories. There may be some other sources I'm unaware of, of course. --Shimbo (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Good answer. Given that the problem I had was with the mismatch between the lede and the infobox, perhaps another option would be to instead modify the lede. How about rephrasing "It was not implemented, as the prerequisite for its construction, the capture of German-held areas that could threaten the port, was not completed." as "By end of August 1944, US forced had captured all of Brittany except for the critical ports themselves, preventing the further development of the operation. Following the capture of Antwerp and its port facilities in the first days of September, the plan was officially cancelled on 7 September 1944." to closely match what you say in the Aftermath section? –Ljleppan (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes that seems like a good idea.--Shimbo (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

B class re-review

@Shimbo: B class. Please also fix citations 28, 34, and 35. They are not matching because they have the wrong date, I think. Djmaschek (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed those citations I think,--Shimbo (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shimbo: You may want to look at The Critical Error of World War II Harold L. Mack https:\\apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA097275.pdfJmosman (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jmosman: Thanks, but I think that's already included. ATM Mack is mainly referenced in the "Debate" section as it's mostly an opinion piece IMO. The exact wording ATM is:

Similarly, Lieutenant Colonel Harold L. Mack, of the COMZ staff, described the failure to implement Operation Chastity as "the critical error of World War II".[50] Mack places the blame for failing to capture Quiberon Bay primarily on Major General Wood who "had set his heart on participating in the main drive for Paris, where he could achieve fame and glory" and only half-heartedly carried out his orders, but accuses all Wood's superiors in the chain of command of failing to appreciate the "supreme need of taking Quiberon Bay".[51]

It's cited to as Mack, Harold L. (1981). "The Critical Error of World War II" (Document). Washington, DC: National Defence University. hdl:2027/mdp.39015055835725. 81-1. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |oclc= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |series= ignored (help). Do you feel there's more that could be added from that source? --Shimbo (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)