Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Razing of Friesoythe

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Razing of Friesoythe

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

Razing of Friesoythe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA in February, there has been a fair bit of work on it since and I believe that it is potentially up to A class standard. The incident is not well known, but I feel deserves a modest degree of prominence. It gives, I think, a feel for the spirit in which the last months of World War II, and probably the rest of it, were fought. No glory and precious few heroes. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • For A-class, the lead probably needs to be expanded a little further, I feel
Done
  • link battalion, Molotov cocktail, Sögel
Done. It seems to me to be getting close to over-linking, but I realise that is subjective.
  • we don't usually include ranks in the infobox
Done
Done
  • "mood was described as buoyant": probably best to say who described it so
Done
  • Vokes was furious when he heard of Wigle's death. "A first-rate.... Suggest making it clear that this quote comes from Vokes' autobiography
  • in the Context section it mentions Sogel, but it doesn't quite seem clear enough that the Sogel incident was in fact a separate one to Friesoythe. Is there a way to make this clearer? Potentially mentioning it as an earlier incident in the lead might be a way to do this
Done I have also given the Sögel section a separate named section.
  • in the Context section, suggest splitting the paragraph after "experience"
Done
  • As G.L. Cassidy put it, "The...: the "T" can be silently decapitalised here
Done
  • suggest clarifying who Cassidy is when introduced
Done
  • the Official History of the Canadian Army is overlinked
Done
  • A recent historian has suggested: probably should name this historian here
Done
  • records "The Argylls were...: the "T" can be silently decapitalised her
Done
  • On 16 April The...: same as above
Done. Although "The" is part of the regiment's name.
  • in the Aftermath, suggest splitting the paragraph after "was spared"
Done
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adding a translation for the German title of the Cloppenburg work
Done. Didn't put it in sentence case, which may be incorrect.
  • in the Bibliography, the title of the Williams' source should use title case capitalisation, and should have an endash instead of a hyphen
Done
  • in the Bibliography, some ISBNs use hyphens and some don't (either is fine, but the approach should be consistent)
Done
  • in the Bibliography, The Canadian Liberation Of The Netherlands: should be a lower case "o" for "of"
Done
  • in the Bibliography, 1 April 1945-30 April 1945: probably should use an endash
Done
  • in the Bibliography, North-west Europe 1944-45: should use an endash
Done
  • Note # 4, the reference should be presented in brackets for consistency)
Done
  • in the Footnotes, citation # 21 probably seems inconsistent to the other citations (for instance citation # 20)
Done
  • in the Footnotes, citation # 25: p. 163–64: should be "pp." for a page range
Done
  • "File:Moncel and Vokes.jpg": lacks alt text, while the other files appear to have it, so I suggest adding it for consistency
Done
  • there is probably no need to repeat the websites in the Bibliography if they are included in specific citations
Done

Image review

edit

Looks like File:Captured German flag, Friesoythe, Germany, 16 April 1945.jpg should have the same PD tag that File:Moncel and Vokes.jpg has.

I am not positive that it needs both the Canada and U.S. PD tag, but that seems right...@Nikkimaria: I tried to take this up to help your workload, but I usually only deal with new images...do you agree with my assessment? Kees08 (Talk) 08:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian tag on Captured_German_flag,_Friesoythe,_Germany,_16_April_1945.jpg states that it applies worldwide and subsequently URAA (which is encompassed by the US tag on the other image) does not apply. Therefore, an additional tag is not needed assuming there is a publication date for the image that would support the validity of the current tag. Similarly, for Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg, we need a publication date to confirm the validity of the tag combination; in theory if it was published early enough the single tag from the other image would be sufficient for this one as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! The Library and Archives Canada site says the copyright is expired, but it may be good to get a publication date as well. @Gog the Mild: Can you track down the publication dates for those two images? Kees08 (Talk) 10:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: I have tried, but it is beyond my meager competence. (I had to seek assistance to get the flag photograph uploaded to Commons; photos and copyright are something of a mystery to me.) I have done some thumb-fingered searching, but haven't come up with anything not apparent on the Library and Archives Canada site. I can't even establish that they were published prior to going on that site. Given the detail in the captions it seems likely that they were published before then, but that is just my guess.
If someone could give me some pointers I will have another go. It is probably something I ought to learn anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could try contacting LAC directly to see if they have any further information. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I did a lot of research on this tonight. I think you are going to need the initial publishing date. It is crown copyright, the author died in 1996, and it will have to be published prior to 1967. Contact the library for clarification, probably at bac.centredeliaison-liaisoncentre.lac@canada.ca. Say something like we are verifying the copyright on the image, and need the publication date to prove it is public domain, or otherwise ask them how it is public domain. Consider CC'ing OTRS on the email. Best work on this early on in the nomination, before it hits the bottom of the queue (that's what happened to my last nomination!). Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in very good shape, and covers the topic well. I have the following comments:

  • The mention of the capture of Sögel in the lead lacks context: how does this relate to the subject of this article, and how close are the towns?
20 miles. I was trying to cover a couple of things:
  1. indicate the mixed quality of the opposition without straying too far from the activities of the 4th Division. Ie, fighting children at Meppen; fierce resistance at Sogel, with several hard pressed counter attacks which even civilians participated in; firm but brittle at Friesoythe.
  2. Indicate that the 4th Division was displaying a pattern of behaviour. It burnt down the centre of Sogel on the 10th, and razed Friesoythe on the 14th. And, see Aftermath, came close to a third incident.
  3. Show up a certain evasiveness in the official record. The official history states that buildings were destroyed in Sogel as a (justified) reprisal. (Reprisals of course are illegal under the Geneva Convention.) For Friesoythe it gives a minimal description of the "mistaken reprisal" and just states that "No investigation was carried out." Which is narrowly true, but as the author was at Friesoythe as the town was bulldozed it seems inconceivable that he was unaware of what happened. It seems to me to be interesting that the official history explicitly describes the 4th Division as twice committing war crimes, but I am not aware of a source which explicitly links them, so I mention it all in the article for a discerning reader to pick up.
OK, but this is confusing for readers - especially in the first para which is meant to summarise the entire article. I'd suggest mentioning Sogel in passing in the lead, or simply omitting it. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the lead. I think that it is now clearer. I am not sure about the Sogel sentence. It reads fine to me, but I am too close. It would be easy to remove it entirely. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canadian Army's official history described the mood as buoyant" - whose mood was buoyant? The 4th Division's, or that of the Canadian troops overall?
Done. Reworded to better match the source.
  • The 'Context' section somewhat under-states the nature of this campaign. While most German towns and units swiftly capitulated, there were lots of short, sharp, battles like this one - especially when Waffen SS or elite (and often fanatical) units like the paratroopers decided to make a stand. Relevant to the attitudes of the Canadian soldiers, the casualties incurred in these pointless battles were greatly resented by the troops (as they saw their comrades killed or wounded when it was obvious that the war was almost won). I'd suggest branching out a bit more widely with your sources here.
Ha! I had tried to stay on topic. Easy enough of course to come up with something on the pointlessness, nearly every account mentions it. I was concerned that I would, by flagging this up, be straying into PoV territory and (strongly) implying that this attitude contributed/caused the incident. It probably did, IMO, but no source puts that view forward directly. I will have a go at adding something to the Context.
  • "85 to 90 per cent of the town was destroyed in the course of this reprisal, making it one of the most-devastated towns in all of Germany at the time" - in percentage terms yes, but a very large number of German towns and cities had been destroyed by the Allied air raids and ground combat. The context here is important: this was one of hundreds of deliberately destroyed German towns. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was from the source, but I take your point and have removed that section. Let the bare numbers, as provided by the sources, speak for themselves.

Support My comments are now addressed: great work here. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments An interesting counterbalance to war crimes perpetrated by Axis forces. Minor comments, mainly around cites:

  • "During the 10th...": I don't think this reads well, suggest: "The following day..."
Quite right. Done.
  • Note 1: Shouldn't harvard cites be used within the note (and the others) for consistency with rest of article?
They seem to be to me. What am I missing?
  • "defended the town.[7][6]": cites not in order.
Done.
  • "A rumour circulated that a local civilian had shot Wigle."[9][11][Note 2][10]: as above, the cites are not in order.
Done
  • "...being badly cratered." This sentence needs a cite I think? The note isn't supposed to be the cite is it?
Done. (Yes.)
  • "... personal visit to Friesoythe on 15 April.[17][16]: cites not in order."
Done.
  • Aren't Cites 5 and 26 the same?
No.
  • Also if a website, then the Morton entry in the bibliography doesn't need to be there.
It is. Should I just remove it?
  • Cite 25: no page number?
  • "...Be that as it may."[26][13]: as above.
Done.
  • Some of the 978 ISBNs don't have a dash.
Already corrected by User:AustralianRupert. Thank you.
  • In the bibliography, the War Diaries are presented in different styles. Suggest selecting a specific format. Also shouldn't there be a mention of the archives for the staff war diary (like there is for the other one). Actually do they need to be mentioned at all here since I just noticed they are recited in full in the notes?
I have given all of the information on each that I have been able to find. To make them consistent I would have to remove information which seems pointless. I suspect that war diaries by their nature are not consistent. I could just leave then in the notes but it seemed useful to flag them up in the bibliography for ease of access/a remender that they were consulted. (I am half expecting this to go "bang" at some stage when it is noticed is accusing the Canadian armny of a war crime. (Or two.)
  • The book refs are not presented consistently, a couple mention city and country, most only mention city, a couple only mention country.
Good spot. Done.
Zawed (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: just checking where you are at on this. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: a further ping, it would be good to get this one wrapped up. Zawed (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: I seem to have missed repeated pings. I am surprised that your patience is holding up and thank you for bearing with me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

commentsSUPPORT by auntieruth

The Canadian Army's official history described the circumstances as buoyant.[1] It was recognised that the end of World War II in Europe was close.[1] suggest rewording these two sentences: According to the Canadian Army's official history, the army's buoyant mood as buoyant reflected the soldiers' belief that the end of the war in Europe was eminent.[1]
Done.
  • needs some kind of indication where the town is.... on the river Soeste, approximately 25 kilometres (16 mi) northwest of Cloppenburg, and 30 kilometres (19 mi) southwest of Oldenburg. Indication that the units had crossed Ems a week earlier is important--how difficult was the crossing? were they het up (heated up)? how many miles from Ems, in how many days...etc. The destruction of Sogel in the lead comes after the destruction of Friesoythe, which is confusing.
Done.
  • ittle official notice was taken at the time of the incident and the official history glosses over it. It is covered in the regimental histories of the units involved and several accounts of the campaign. There was no investigation of the event. Although the Canadian Army took little notice of the incident at the time, and the official military history glosses over the destruction of both Sogel and Friesoythe, the incidents are described in the regimental histories of the units involved.
"There was no investigation of the event." I had almost exactly those words in an earlier version, but was asked to remove it as unsourced. Which is a fair point. The statement seems to be accurate, but it is not explicitly stated in any source I can find and so is OR.
  • During the action on 10 April or On 10 April.... Destroyed by engineers to provide rubble? Or as reprisal? This is confusing.
Both. Could you elaborate on how the wording might be confusing? (I am probably too close to it.) To clarify, the "official" story is that they were destroyed as a reprisal, and as the rubble was then conveniently to hand it was used to reinforce the roads. Given the appalling state of the roads the cynically inclined may suspect that this was in the minds of those weighing a course of action which would generate a large quantity of rubble.
  • If the Germans were to hold it... if the Germans were to hold it, (comma)
Done
  • reaching the outskirts of Friesoythe, where several major roads met, on 13 April reaching a major intersection in the outskirts of F., on 13 April...
"Intersection" is US English and many readers will not readily understand it IMO. Happy to reword, but I am struggling to think of one. I have changed it. An improvement?
  • Vokes ordered the resumption of the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick E. Wigle. Vokes ordered Lieutenant-Colonel Frederick E. Wigle to resume the attack by the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders on.....
If I make that change then I will need to add a new sentence somewhere spelling out that Wigle was the battalion CO. Eg as opposed to the brigade commander etc. I would prefer to leave it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it an outflanking march or a flanking march? I'd have thought flanking march.
Done.
  • etc.
  • it is not clear if Stacy is talking about Friosyothe or Garrel.
Done.
  • I think also, that you should mention Garrel int he lead, because the death of the officer created a cascade of reprisals. Let me know if you want me to look again, or to help .... Nice job.

auntieruth (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing actually happened at Garrel and so it wasn't actually a reprisal I don't feel that it is notable enough to go in the lead. I didn't put it into earlier versions of the article at all, but then relented.
  • The attack went well, meeting only scattered resistance from a disorganised garrison.....the attack (? flanking maneuver?) met only scattered resistance from the disorganized garrison.
Done. (Mostly.)

G'day Gog the Mild, there are a few loose ends to be followed up here. It looks to be close to passing, but we'd want some action shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Apologies, I missed this. Zawed has just pinged me, prompting me to come back to this. Yes, I have been letting this one sit a bit. The main remaining issue as I understand it is US copyright on the two images, for which I need to find the date of first publication. I have just sent a final reminder to The Library and Archives Canada. If they don't reply by the end of the week I will replace the images. (I have looked for suitable replacements a couple of times but not found anything I was happy with; I probably need to lower my standards.) I am aware that there are a few other points not yet addressed, but they are relatively minor. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: It is now "the end of the week" and so an update. The Library and Archives Canada have, a little to my surprise, responded. I have passed this on to Kees08, who has been generously doing the image review. He commented "Try replying back asking again for the specific publication date, does not hurt. Otherwise, they said it was published over 50 years ago explicitly, so you should be good to go." So I think that the last issue has been overcome, or nearly so. Should I ping the other editors who have commented above so they can check to see if my edits and/or responses to their comments are satisfactory? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild , yeah, ping those who haven't already indicated support. I've added mine. Zawed (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08 and Auntieruth55: Thank you both for bearing with me while I have dragged this review out to inordinate length. I would be grateful if you could have a review of your comments above and my responses and see if I have satisfactorily addressed your concerns. (Kees08, that will be direct to your talk page, and I understand that it is provisional depending on the response, if any, to my request for precise first publication dates. I'll keep you informed.) Your input on kicking this, the first Wikipedia article I wrote, into shape is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine regardless, though it would be nice if they give us the real publication date. The email you received was very clear. I do not think you went through OTRS with it (you should still try), but I am willing to AGF on the issue. Kees08 (Talk) 05:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: They may yet get back with the actual dates. If they do, I'll let you know. What's OTRS? (I assume not OTRS.) Gog the Mild (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You will want the Commons page for it I think: OTRS Kees08 (Talk) 02:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Just looking at the sources for quality and reliability per recent change to the ACR process, noting that other reviewers have looked at formatting etc. They all look ok, except:

  • what makes www.canadiansoldiers.com a reliable source? Are casualties covered in Fraser?
  • It's gone. They source most of their comments, so I have used the originals. And found better quality if less precise sources where necessary, rephrasing as required.
  • same for regimentalrogue.com, again, does Fraser have info about battle honours?
  • Done.
  • same for warfarehistorynetwork.com (which I think could be dispensed with in any case, as it is corroborating Zuehlke which looks reliable
  • Done.
  • www.thememoryproject.com seems to be a first-person account, so I don't think it can be used. Do the other citations cover the same material?
  • Sure. Completely unnecessary. I was probably trying to nail down all the corners, given the subject matter, and got over-enthusiastic.
  • I couldn't find any academic papers about this incident on Google Scholar.
  • Me neither. Shameful in my opinion. If anyone has come across any I would be delighted to include them. I may consider submitting this for professional publication.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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/Razing_of_Friesoythe&oldid=854839603"