Talk:Juno Beach/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed three.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~Quotes such as "superb armoured divisions" need in-text attribution as well as cites. Who said this?~~
Granatstein in Bloody Victory on page 19. It's already cited in the "German Preparations" section. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you need to say that Granatstein said that, the cite alone is insufficient.

Despite this, most of the German divisions along the French coast in late-1943 were either newer recruits or rebuilding veterans of the Eastern Front; "new" recruits, I think.
Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'~~'to minimize the distance for which they were exposed on the beaches "during" rather than "for"~~

'~~'It was formed with soldiers "largely below the age of eighteen and with men over thirty-five", comprising a total of 7,771 combat troops. "from" rather than "with"~~
It's a direct quote. Can't change it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops of course it is.

Field exercises in Scotland commenced in August and September 1943, and succeeded in establishing unique techniques and equipment for use by armoured and artillery regiments in storming the beach." What were these "unique" techniques?
Mostly fitting them to LCTs and having them fire while still on the boats. I've added stuff. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through winter 1943 units worked in close cohesion to develop more advanced assault tactics among the Juno Beach regiments. "Through the winter of 1943"
Fixed by someone else (thank-you!)

had begun intense training for the invasion with the 3rd CID in February 1944, what is the "3rd CID"?
3rd Canadian Infantry Division. I'm a little bit inconsistent with what I call the division; I'll add a note. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

with a full-scale simulation of the invasion carried out on 4 May with Exercise Fabius !"with Exercise Fabius" should perhaps be "in Exercise Fabius"
Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"30 minutes before H Hour and continue for 15 minutes; heavy bombing would then begin on the flanks of the divisional attack, lasting until H Hour" again direct attribution needed.
It's also already cited. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S before there should be intext attribution, so that a reader can figure out who said it.

All told the attack continued until 05:15, with 5,268 tons of bombs dropped by 1,136 sorties; this marked the largest attack by Bomber Command in terms of tonnage up to this point in the war. suggest drop "All told"
Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean a lower tide, necessitating that the LCIs "would be obliged to touch down in the middle of the obstructions [beach obstacles] designed to destroy them". replace "necessitating that" with "meaning that"
Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike for the Winnipegs, the DD Tanks had arrived at the Regina Rifles' beaches before the infantry, and in greater numbers than in Mike Sector. very clumsy phrasing
I've fixed this somewhat. Let me know if it's better. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and soon "had cleared a succession of the assigned blocks in the village" Needs attribution as well as a cite. Who said this?
also already cited. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Needs in text attribution as well as a cite

The reports coming in from the battalions already on Juno were mixed; the North Shore was "proceeding according to plan", while the Chaudieres were "making progress slowly".again, attribution needed.
ditto. Cite note 88. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ditto, in text atribution please

...while the eastern Companies of the North Shore Regiment were fighting for St.-Aubin Should this be hyphenated? Likewise "St.-Croix" Should be either Sainte-Croix or St. Croix. And these place names need to be wikilinked to the correct target (there are 25 possible articles for Sainte-Croix) on their first mention. Likewise for Saint-Aubin. Also quite a few of the units are not wikilinked, yet I am sure that there are suitable targets.

Rather a lot of abbreviations are used and this becomes confusing at times as one has to refer back to figure out what is being referred to. Whilst introduced abbreviations are fine, sometimes the full name or term needs to be re-introduced.
I've gotten rid of a few of them. I'm still honestly debating whether to change over the shortened versions of the regiment names. I end up referring to them as "The Winnipegs" or "The QOR" or "The Reginas" quite a lot. Do you want me to change those over as well? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency, readability and understanding for the non expert reader are what matters. LCA, DD, CID are used extensively and could do with better explanation throughout.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I assume good faith for all sources which are off-line, all appear reliable, article is well referenced, no obvious OR. I note that no use has been made of [Beevor, Anthony (28 May 2009). D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Viking. ISBN 978-0141048130.] which provides a very good overview with newly available sources. (just a comment)
I'll see if I can find it either of the Calgary universities in the coming weeks. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Juno Beach order of battle: can you provide a short paragraph summary here, perhaps detail numbers of troops on both sides, major units, etc.
Better yet, I've moved it to be at the very top of the "planning and preparations" section, since that's basically a highly-detailed order of battle with additional information about defences and assault training. Hope that works. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Licensed and captioned OK
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to work on these issues likely tomorrow; I'm going to be spending most of today in aircraft and airports, but I'll get to work as quickly as I can. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 14:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep this on hold until 5 May and decide whether to pass or fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is sufficiently improved to pass muster, so I shall be listing. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measure

It refers to 'feet' and 'miles' without conversions. Conversions would help make the article widely accessible.
Some of the units of measure need a space between the numeric value and the unit name.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]