Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Vimy Ridge

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
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.

Battle of Vimy Ridge

edit
Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a thorough and comprehensive review of the battle and complements content of the Battle of Arras very well. A great deal of improvement has been made over the past year. The battle itself has strong Canadian symbolic importance and as a result it would be beneficial to improve to FA in time for the battle's anniversary in April. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Cam

As my comments are likely to be quite lengthy and (hopefully) thorough, I have split mine off into a separate sub-section. most of these comments are intended as well with eventual FAC in mind. At the moment, I am Neutral leaning towards Oppose, based mostly on criterion A2.

General

  • Throughout the references (and indeed the article), I'm perceiving a tendency to focus much more on the actions of the CC as opposed to the G6A throughout the battle. Most, if not all, of the sources are of Anglo-Canadian origin. As such, I think that the article needs to take a slightly broader perspective. I know that Erich Ludendorff's war memoirs do go into quite a bit of detail with regards to the Battle of Arras, see if you can find them.
If at all possible I'd like to avoid the use of memoirs such as Ludendorff's. A quality perspective is not necessarily based on nationality. Jack Sheldon's The German Army on Vimy Ridge 1914 - 1917 is supposedly a thorough, fascinating and impressive read. He's written a whole series of books examining the German side in various WWI battles and is starting to become an established expert on the subject. If I had access to this book the whole German side would be properly and fairly evenly represented, as it should be. But alas, getting a hold of a copy in Canada is impossible. SO if you anyone knows someone with a copy, and can scan the 1917 section, I could do the work. Short of that, getting substantial German improvement is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible. Labattblueboy (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Vimy Ridge 1917 By Jack Sheldon and Nigel Cave might equally hold a good examination of the German side but I don't know for certain. However I don't have access to it either. Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know just the people to ping on this one. Cam (Chat) 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along similar lines, the "Assault Preparations" section is way too much Canadian and British, not enough German. How extensive were the German tunelling systems? Did the Germans attempt any trench raids? How extensive were German artillery positions? How "formidable" (or lack thereof) were German defenses? There is not enough of an information balance in this section
Doing my best to try to better incorporate the German side. I hope to have a bit of help in this department as I don't have access to the proper books. Labattblueboy (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)  Doing...[reply]
  • Again, the Attack section doesn't focus sufficiently on Germany. Did any of their regiments shift throughout the battle? How did German high command react on 9 April? Were reinforcements sent?
Infobox and Lead (Issues Resolved)
  • 9 April to 12 April 1917. Shouldn't "to" be replaced with and endash?  Done
  • The first paragraph of the lead has a very confusing structure that tends to make it too choppy. I might be able to experiment a bit. In the meantime, could I possibly suggest formatting the first paragraph along similar lines as Roger did during his copyedit of Battle of Verrières Ridge.
I can see what you mean. Using Battle of Verrières Ridge as a model, I have re-written the lead. I have also removed the quote that was in the lead. Please review and let me know what you think of what's there now. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first section of the third lead paragraph (the bit about Germany's failure to adhere to their elastic defense method) seems somewhat out of place, and far too detailed for what is meant to be a general overview of the article.
removed elastic defence and simply said German defensive doctrine. Moved to second paragraph so the final paragraph is now largely about the significance. Done
Background (Issues Resolved)
  • The first paragraph is way too short. It needs to be combined into the second paragraph.
Combined paragraphs. Done
  • The ridge had fallen under German control in October 1914 during the Race to the Sea as the opponents continually attempted to outflank each other through northeastern France. The use of "the opponents" is quite vague. A better term needs to be found
"Opponents" has been changed to Franco-British and German forces (Can't think of a better term, any ideas?). Labattblueboy (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French attempted to dislodge the Germans from the region during the Second Battle of Artois in May 1915 by attacking their positions at Vimy Ridge and Notre Dame de Lorette - do we know which French armies were involved?
Actually, yes! For the Second Battle of Artois it was the French 10th Army attacking with the 21st Corps, 20th Corps and 33rd Corps. Now states: "The French Tenth Army attempted to dislodge"... Done
  • It states that the French suffered 150 000 casualties in the battle. Would you happen to know the distribution of KIA/WIA/MIA for that 150 000?
I sincerely doubt a break-down can be found for this figure. Although it is commonly stated in academically review works I have never seen a break down. If I were to venture a guess, I would suspect its because the number is a round estimate and not necessarily a perfect figure. Labattblueboy (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Alright, that's not a huge issue. My personal guess for the location of figures would be the French or British war archives, neither of which I have access to. I'll ask around and see if anyone does. Cam (Chat) 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last sentence of the second paragraph, it mentions that the Canadian Corps was "newly formed". It was activated in September 1915. 13 months later, I'd hardly call it "newly formed". They'd already fought at Mont Sorrel, Hooge, Sanctuary Wood and the Somme by that point, so they weren't "newly formed".
The term has been removed. The comment was likely to simply denote that the Canadian Corps was not a full strength corps until the inclusion of the 4th Canadian Division in October/November 1916.  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tactical Plan (Issues Resolved)
  • a large contingent of nominated British and Dominion officers sounds way too unwieldy. Could it simply be changed to "British Empire officers" or something along those lines that includes both britain and her dominions?
I have re-written the sentence to improve flow (no more commas), but I have not grouped both Dominion and British.. I don't think it would be proper. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere in this section does it mention how far each of the lines was (approximately) from the start-lines of the offensive.
  • Could the brief section on German elastic defense be expanded and split into its own section, perhaps titled "German defenses" or "German preparations"
I like this suggestion. New section: German defenses  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new section looks excellent! Cam (Chat) 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artillery (Issues Resolved)
  • In the sentence "consisting of 480 eighteen-pounders, 138 4.5-inch howitzers, 96 2-inch trench mortars, 24 9.45-inch mortars", the continual usage of numbers to describe both gun caliber and quantity becomes extremely confusing. The first one is structured as 480 eighteen-pounders, while the second one is structured as all numbers, while others further down are all letters. My suggestion would be to use spelled out numerals (ie "four hundred eighty") for the gun quantity, and numbers for the gun caliber, as is standard MoS.
To respect MoS (dates and numbers) numbers as figures or works and typography, I have change 480 eighteen-pounders to four hundred eigthy 18-pounder field guns (the 18-pounder field gun is the most common term, it's never noted in caliber) and spelled out the others to match. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph: Aiding the effectiveness of the artillery was the introduction of the instantaneous No. 106 fuse. Is "aiding" really the right word?
Edited to read: "The effectiveness of the artillery was further improved by the introduction of the instantaneous No. 106 fuse."  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Training (Issues Resolved)
  • Could a bit of detail be added about what the "return of fire" and movement tactics were, just for clarification?
expanded the section, wikilinked "fire and movement", noted importance of tactical change and how it was implemented.Labattblueboy (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • a large-scale plasticine model of the Vimy sector was constructed and utilized to show officers and senior non-commissioned officers the topographical features of the battlefield and details of the German trench system - the use of "officers" twice in the same sentence bogs down the wording. Could an alternative wording be possible?
Fair enough, changed to; "commissioned and senior non-commissioned officers" but alternatively senior non-commissioned officers could always be changed to senior enlisted men.  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where were the British 1st Army Headquarters located?
I actually have no idea. I am sure I could find that out but would like to place more pressing improvement needs first. Can any other reviewer possibly offer an idea on this one?  Doing... Labattblueboy (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Underground Operations (Issues Resolved)
  • "19 distinct mine crater groups existing along the Canadian front by 1917" what exactly is meant by "mine crater groups"? Is that a single crater, or a set of craters from one detonation? Or something else entirely?
Clarified  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thirteen multi-thousand pound mines were also laid under German positions". The wording is slightly choppy. Perhaps "Thirteen mines exceeding one thousand pounds were also laid under German positions" or something along those lines.
You're right, too choppy and likewise too detailed. re-written and simplified.  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could slight detail go into explaining what "Wombat Charges" were?
I believe this has been clarified. Removed the word Wombat and replaced with more generic terminology. I think the term Wombat charge is too specialized to really even be included. Most WWI folk aren't even aware of the term and thus it's best removed. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trench Raiding (Issues Resolved)
  • the opening sentence reads way too much like a story, and not enough like an encyclopedia.
Modified. IS now an explanation of the term. Done
  • How large was the average trench raiding party?
An average range has now been given and cited.  Done
  • "The policy of aggressive trench raiding was not however without its cost" The placement of "however" really throws off the reader
removed "however", not necessary  Done
  • The stat of 637 casualties during the one raid, can they be more specific with regards to KIA/WIA/MIA?
Beligerants (Issues Resolved)
Have moved everything into paragraph form. I have removed the names of all divisional (German and Canadian) so that things flowed better. Likewise, I have removed the Canadian brigade breakdown with the exception of the reserves breakdown. Labattblueboy (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should still mention Arthur Currie, since his contributions to the battle were significant (and got him Knighted). Cam (Chat) 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary Attack (Issues Resolved)
  • Could an article be made about the 106 fuse to avoid the breakup created by the commons redirect?
  • Which German soldier referred to it as "the week of suffering"? If there isn't a specific one, could it be reworded to say "German soldiers came to refer to the week before the attack as 'the week of suffering"?
Gone with suggested rewording.  Done
Main Assault (Issues Resolved)
  • In general, this section is structured with too many descriptors and niceties. "eerie silence" should just be "silence", "sweeping sleet and snow" should just be "sleet and snow".
Agreed, cut out bunch of it out. Done
  • Could it be explained which units were the "fresh units" that reinforced 1stCanDiv, 2ndCanDiv and 3rdCanDiv after they reached the Red Line?
All is now clear. In the case of the fresh units that supported the leap-frog of the 1st and 2nd Canadian Divisions I specified the number of brigades but not their full names / numbers. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, excellent section.
Aftermath (Issues Resolved)
  • could paras 1 & 2 be combined?  Done
  • For the VCs awarded, could it be added which divisions each of them were a part of and what day the action they were awarded for took place?
I think the exact details of each Victoria Cross are best left to the page of the relevant individual. I don't want to bog it down with award details.  Not done Labattblueboy (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the German defensive collapse should use more German sources. I know that Roger & Carom make mention of Ludendorff's memoirs in Battle of Arras (1917) (the parent operation of Vimy Ridge) when describing the command shift following the battle.
One must be careful how one uses the memoirs of an individual who has a personal stake in how their reputation is perceived over time. It was very well and likely very carefully used on Battle of Arras. I noticed in fact only a specific set of 2 pages were cited in that case. I don't think choosing sources based on nationality is necessarily appropriate. Whether German, British or Canadian, for this section the Godefroy piece is a good source. I am well aware that there are a good number of Canadian sources that have a strong nationalistic biased but this source in particular was seeking to present a balanced analysis and shatter some of the established preconceptions and present the how the German army perceived things.  Not done Labattblueboy (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the citation for one of the two Godefroy chapters was missing from the references section. I have now corrected that.Labattblueboy (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, probably the best and most balanced section of the article.
Popular Influence (Issues Resolved)
  • The second sentence of the first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Was it supposed to be a section part of the first sentence? If that's not the case, I'm not even sure how you could reformat it.
Simply cut it. Didn't change the tone in doing so.  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the section title be changed to "Canadian Influence"?  Done
Vimy Memorial (Issues Resolved)
  • Could it mention that the memorial was officially rededicated ON 9 April 2007, the 90th anniversary of the battle?
  • The picture used looks as though it is of the older memorial. Could you possibly find a picture of the restored memorial? If you can't, I have several from my visit to the battlefield in July 2007 that I could upload.
I have uploaded an new image a couple years back and change the respective article image. It is on the reverse side of the memorial but certainly one of my better photos I've taken of the memorial.  Done Labattblueboy (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could it mention why much of the surrounding terrain is still closed to the public? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it has a great deal to do with the fact that live artillery ammunition is still found underground on the battlefield.
It's actually a number of reasons. The ammunition is not really the most dangerous part. Although the last thing you would want is a Canadian who doesn't know any better playing with it. What is dangerous is the collapsing dugouts and sharp metal such as barbed wire pickets and man traps that are slowly coming to the surface. Secondly there is a desire to preserve the site as best possible and you can't do that very well with people walking all over the site (For instance, the old walking paths in the mine craters are still clearly visible). Enough of the sidebar though, let me see what I can do about adding an extra line or two.Labattblueboy (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I forgot about the barbed wire stuff. In fact, three weeks before I went there, the French herder whose sheep are "responsible" for naturally cutting the grass put his left foot through the top of a barbed-wire post (ouch). Cam (Chat) 06:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added unexploded munitions to list of dangers on site.  Done
Here's another option from the front
  • Could it also mention the memorial centre at Vimy Ridge, which has the one trench reconstructed and several of the tunnels re-opened?
I think this information is best left to the main memorial article. It is linked in a number of instances to the vimy battle page. The explanation of the memorial is currently at a good length. I have however included the fact the memorial commemorates not only the battle but all those that have no known resting place in France.Labattblueboy (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a brief line has now been included.Labattblueboy (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)  Done[reply]

All the best in taking the article forward. Correct the issues noted above, and you'll have my full support. Cam (Chat) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • A very nice article, sources look good and the prose is almost there—just a little polish here and there is needed.
  • In the "Background" section, the line about the Germans having captured several British mine craters could probably use a footnote explaining what they are, and why they were worth capturing. Us MILHIST types would probably understand why they would be useful, but the average reader might not. You can use <ref group=>Insert footnote text here</ref>

coupled with a separate header for {{reflist|group=}} to set up the footnote.

I have added a supplementary explanation to note # 15 and expanded a bit of the text in the background to hopefully improve the level of understanding. Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:ENGVAR issue; does Canadian English use -ize or -ise? There's an "emphasized" in the "Tactical plan" section that may need to be fixed.

Canadian spelling normally employs -ize. I do notice however that there is some incosistencies in the article with regards to canadian/british vs. american spelling. This will need to be fixed. Labattblueboy (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left "fuze" although I'm not sure if it should be "fuse" or "fuze". I only have french-english dictionaries around, not those fancy canadian ones.
Looks good. I dropped a note at WT:MILHIST for some help for fuse/fuze, I'm sure someone will give us a hand with that one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Underdown says that, technically speaking, "fuze" is more correct for "anything more complicated than a slow-match or powder trail". Or at least that's the impression he's under. Parsecboy (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, so I guess we can consider this point fully addressed now. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Battle section", the lines about the battalion CO from 4th ID requesting that some portions of the German trench be spared destruction needs some rewording to avoid repetitiveness. I would suggest changing "Undestroyed machine-gun nests" to "The machine-gun nests in these sections of the German line..." or something similar.
Went with suggested change  Done

Once these and the issues raised by Cam above have been fixed, I'll be happy to support. Parsecboy (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, very nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very good article. I've fixed some minor flaws, and the only suggestions I have are moving some images to the left (8 on the right, 5 on the left as it is), and it'd be nice to mention if the memorial was affected by WWII at all - doesn't really seem like something they'd like, but if they did leave it alone just ignore this. – Joe Nutter 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article has improved immensely over the last two weeks, and is now at what can be considered an A-Class level. The coverage issues have been significantly minimized, though they are still there and should be addressed before an eventual FAC. That said, those issues do not disqualify it from being A-level. All the best, and good luck! Cam (Chat) 00:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph in "Battle in the air" section needs a citation. Several other paragraphs end without citations, leaving dangling, uncited text.
Para-end citation added for air section. 2 more para citations added in other areas.  Done
  • I think that the paragraph under "Belligerents" concerning the German forces should be moved to the "German defences" sub-section in the "Assault preparations" section and the paragraph concerning the Canadian divisions' attack plans should be moved to the "Tactical plan" section.
had been done in lines of "Operation Windsor, Battle of Verrieres Ridge, Operation Varsity, or Moro River Campaign" as suggested during this review. Will leave as is and at FAC this can be re-exanimed. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that for every distance or measurement stated in the English system the metric equivalent has to be provided in paretheses, but I don't know if the same holds true if the article uses metric by default throughout.
The sources themselves were all in yards, hence the extensive use of convert template. It was more so to respect the sources used than anything else. Labattblueboy (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Vimy_Ridge&oldid=1138360894"