Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 11:35, 25 November 2012 [1].

Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy

[edit]

Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Australian personnel involved in the Battle of Normandy in 1944 represented only a small part of the vast Allied force, this campaign represented a high point of Australia's role in the fighting in Western Europe and involved thousands of airmen, hundreds of sailors and a small party of 13 Australian Army officers. The article was assessed as GA class last November, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in March this year. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it now also meets the FA criteria.

I started writing this article last September to educate myself ahead of a trip to Europe in which I visited the Normandy battlefields. To my surprise, I found that no single source covers the entire Australian role in the Battle of Normandy from June to August 1944, and the official history of the RAAF's involvement in Europe which was published in 1963 remains the only detailed account of what the thousands of Australian airmen (who made up the vast majority of the Australian force) did in Europe during this period. As such, by necessity this article relies heavily on the official history (which remains well regarded by modern scholars), though I've been able to pull a lot of extra detail together from many other sources. I hope that you find the article as interesting to read as I've found researching it to be, and thanks in advance for all comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I've started reading the article, seems to be in fine shape overall thus far. A few nitpicks:
  • "The Australian squadron accounted for eight of the 22 bombers shot down" I think WP:NUMERAL advises against mixing figures and words like this.
    • Hmm, I've used this style in previous FAs (attracting some comments, but nothing serious) and I'm inclined to stick with it. Altering these sentences would mean that all the instances where figures less than 11 are expressed as words would also need to be amended for consistency. I think that the current style also reflects Australian usage, though I could well be wrong. Long story short: I think that this is OK, but I'd be happy to alter it if you think that its a significant problem. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australians posted to eight RAF units took part in defensive patrols which were sought to prevent German reconnaissance aircraft" Is "which were sought" a typo here, it reads awkwardly to me.
  • "Nancy Wake, an Australian serving with the British Special Operations Executive, was also parachuted into France" Is "was also parachuted" correct? Sounds odd to me.
  • "a RAAF fighter squadron operated from airfields in Normandy throughout much of the campaign. Throughout the campaign Australian airmen provided direct support to the Allied ground forces" There's some repetition here, "throughout much of the campaign. Throughout the campaign"
  • In the paragraph that begins "Australians were also involved in attacks on German defences" you use "also" a few times, I'd suggest looking for ways to cut down on it.
  • The use of the serial comma is inconsistent, for example "These included one regular RAAF unit, No.10 Squadron, and nine "Article XV squadrons"" vs "No. 460, No. 463 and No. 467 Squadrons were equipped with Lancasters".
  • More comments to follow over the next day or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might be able to shorten a couple "in order to"s to just "to".
  • "his commanding officer believed that German forces could execute Barr if they recaptured him." minor issue, but I'd think "would" would be better than "could" here.
  • Should "ground attack sorties" or "night fighter squadrons" be hyphenated?
    • From quickly checking the usage in Google books, either works for 'ground attack' (though non-hyphenated seems more common). Wikipedia's article on the topic uses Night fighter, so I'll stick with that for internal consistency (it also appears to be the more common option in Google books for what it's worth). Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No. 455 Squadron took part in several attacks on E-boats" is there a good place to link "E-boats"?
  • "there were also hundreds of RAAF personnel in the UK who were assigned to personnel depots while they waited to be posted to a combat unit; prior to the invasion these men were seen as an asset as they provided a pool of trained personnel to make good combat losses." Is there a good way around the repetition of "personnel" here?
  • "As at 1 June 1944, Australians comprised the following proportions" I'd suggest "As of" here.
  • There's some inconsistency here: "Sharpe (2004), p. 36 estimates that" vs "Sharpe (2004) pp. 36–37 discusses" (no comma in the second). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm ready to support now, being satisfied with the explanations and fixes to my comments. Seems to be a very well written/accessible presentation of the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: All images are appropriately tagged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 31, 55, 56, 57, 83, 93, 98, 103, 109 - all okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • nine "Article XV squadrons" manned by graduates of the Empire Air Training Scheme (EATS). While these Article XV squadrons were Should "Article XV" be repeated?
      • I think so as it's needed to distinguish them from No. 10 Squadron. To get around this construction would need an extra sentence or so, so I think that the repetition is the lesser of two evils. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would No. 460, No. 463 and No. 467 Squadrons be better as Nos. 460, 463 and 467 Squadrons?
    • "Four RAN sub-lieutenants who had been sent to the UK to undergo training were also assigned to RN landing craft units" Consider dropping "also" and also in the next sentence:
    • "Thirteen Australian Army officers were also attached to British Army"
      • I think that the first 'also' is OK (as it separates the officers who had been posted to the UK for other purposes but were added to the invasion force from the Australians who were more or less permanently attached to the RN), and I've removed the second 'also'. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to what Hawkeye says above, as far as I am aware the consensus of a couple of months ago still stands, and files such as File:453 Squadron RAAF pilots in Normandy July 1944.jpg that were published before 1946 need to be licensed with a PD-1996 tag to indicate their status in the US. File:Grave of an RAAF airman at Bayeux War Cemetery.jpg needs a rationale for the underlying work (there is no freedom of panorama in France). That, I imagine, will be based on a Australian government rationale but I don't know when the gravestones were erected. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because of the effects of weather etc, the gravestones are periodically replaced by the CWGC. However, there is nothing copyrightable in the image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added tags for the PD-1996 photos. In regards to the gravestone, I don't think that it falls foul of France's strict freedom of panorama laws as it's not an artistic work in any sense - it's a purely functional item with no decorations (the markings on the gravestone are standardised and have the purpose only of identifying the service the men fought for and their religion; from the appearance of the gravestones I it appears that they're produced as identical blank templates, and then have the standard markings of the regiment/service and religion applied in line with guidelines which do not permit any deviations or artistic expression). Nothing except for almost identical gravestones and a hedge are visible in the photo. I note also that France has gifted the land the cemetery sits on in perpetuity to the UK, and the gravestone is the property of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This deletion discussion on Commons concerning a Canadian memorial in France seems highly relevant (I couldn't spot any comparable cases which were closed as 'delete' from a quick check). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • They were once carved by hand, but today a robot is used. All the stones are, and have always been carved to exact specifications. Australian stones each have an epitaph chosen by the families of the servicemen, but this is not copyright. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few issues have been confused in the discussion above:
  • Firstly, it is clear there are copyrightable elements in the photograph, namely, one: the Royal Australian Air Force emblem on the central grave (the others are merely incidental). It is an artistic work. However, that isn't to say it is actually in copyright; this I very much doubt. If this grave were in France, then we would need a rationale on why that emblem was out of copyright.
  • Secondly, the location of this grave. If it is indeed in the United Kingdom, in a functional sense - I think the Commons discussion is clear enough that gifting the land in perpetuity amounts to this - then the UK has freedom of panorama. Freedom of panorama means that notwithstanding the copyrightable content of the photograph, if it's 3D, permanent, and you're standing in an openly accessible place, etc. etc. then there can be no claim by the copyright holder. In our case, this is the way to go: just explain on the image that it is covered under British freedom of panorama. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the FoP-UK tag, and some explanation. As noted above, the RAAF emblem is there only for functional purposes (as I can attest from personal experiance; the only way I could locate the Australian graves was by scanning for RAAF crests) so this should also be OK under French law as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source commentary


Comments. This review could be piecemeal because my Internet access is limited, but it's a fascinating article and I look forward to reading through it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Battle of Normandy looks like a disambiguation page
  • Does London really need a link?
  • Or squadron?
    • I think so, as readers not familiar with military terminology may not know what these formations were (which is significant as they were the only 'Australian' units involved in the fighting). Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army isn't a proper noun; personally I don't object to "the Army" when referring to a specific army, but I've been criticised for it in reviews.
  • I assume you've checked all the red links and made sure they're for notable subjects?
    • I checked them, and the only one I had my doubts about was Colin Leith. However, he does have a book about him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have some doubts about Leith as well, but being the subject of a detailed obituary in a major newspaper written by the former secretary of the Department of Defence seems sufficient to establish notability and so I left the red link in. Most of the other red-linked people are the subject of entries in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which is considered grounds for automatic notability given the depth and quality of coverage this provides. Thanks for your comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little background on the Merchant Navy's role would be useful; I imagine little is know about the Australians who served in the MN, but if anything is known, it would be nice to have a sentence or two in he article.
    • No details are available, unfortunately. I can't even say whether the seamen were serving in Australian-owned ships or British ships (most likely a mixture of both as the crewing of merchant ships was surprisingly fluid). Very little has been written on the Australian Merchant Navy, and this literature is heavily focused on its role in the Pacific and Battle of the Atlantic. I'd really like to add more on this topic (my grandfather was in the Merchant Navy), and will keep a look out for new sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo Gullett seems to have transferred from the Green Howards to the Royal Scots. Did Australian officers have the same ties to their (British) regiments as British personnel do?
    • No, not at all - Gullett served in three regiments during his posting to the British Army prior to and during the Normandy Campaign (he claims to have personally lobbied the head of the Australian Army and the corps commander to be transferred from the first regiment when he discovered it wasn't going to form part of the first wave at D-Day, and entered the third regiment through some kind of informal agreement after the second unit suffered heavy losses and was placed in reserve; the details differ between his various autobiographies though!). The other Australian Army officers also seem to have moved pretty frequently between units - I've noted this where details are available. More generally, the Australian Army didn't have a British-style regimental system, and it wasn't uncommon for officers to move between units. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more on how Gullett was wounded would be nice
  • Most of the other Australian officers served in staff positions; do you know if this was deliberate (for example were the British not keen on having Aussies in combat roles or were the secondments designed to give the officers staff experience) or just a coincidence?
    • I don't have the source handy, but this appears to have been a deliberate decision by the Australian Army (presumably as by this stage of the war it had lots of experiance in combat, but felt it needed more experiance in planning complex operations). Note also that Gullett was the only infantry officer posted to the UK. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 mentions Australian citizens who enlisted directly in the British military—was that normal?
    • Yes - many Australians chose to directly enlist in the British military in both world wars (often as they happened to be in the UK at the outbreak of war, but others saw the Australian military as second rate or likely to be deployed to secondary theatres or areas with uncomfortable climates). Australians had British citizenship at the time, and many had been born in the UK so there were no barriers to joining the British military. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to the above, does The total number of Australians killed on 6 June include "Australian citizens who enlisted directly in the British military"? Do any of the figures in the article?
    • No, as there's apparently no practical way of identifying the Australians who enlisted directly in the British military. All the figures refer to members of the Australian military. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other Australian journalists in Normandy included John Hetherington, Geoff Hutton and Ronald Monson. That seems a little like name-dropping and those journalists don't have articles. What's the value in including them in that way, and if there is value, it would be nice to have articles on them so that readers can find out more about them and so you don't have a string of red links.
    • They're all notable journalists, and their entries in the Australian Dictionary of Biography provide details of what they did in Normandy. I'm not well qualified to write articles about journalists, and don't see anything wrong with red links in FAs. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Command operated intensively; as with "Army", "Command" isn't a proper noun per se.
  • Forty-four Australians are buried vs Of the 44 Australian graves. I know the MoS prohibits starting a sentence with a numeral; is it not better to re-structure the sentence than to spell the number out, especially when you use the numeral so soon afterwards. Also, "of the 44" is probably redundant.
  • Is there anything written about the long-term effect of the contribution? How did it affect Australia's defence policy or its relationship with the UK? What impact did it have on the armed forces themselves?
    • No, I wasn't able to find anything about this (despite much searching). The only clear result of the campaign on Australia's war effort noted in any of the sources was that it effectively ended the flow of airmen being trained through the Empire Air Training Scheme, and the article discusses this. As such, there don't appear to have been any other long-term effects of Australia's involvement in the battle (note that the popular literature on the Australians in Europe is heavily focused on the experiences of airmen in Bomber Command during operations against Germany, and the professional literature is focused on how the Empire Air Training Scheme operated and whether Australia's involvement in it was a good or bad thing; as I noted in the introduction to this review, the only comprehensive history of the Australian role in the fighting in Europe remains the official history which was published in the 1960s!). Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Australia contribute personnel to the European campaign at all?
    • By and large because the Australian Government had agreed to provide thousands of RAAF airmen to the RAF through the Empire Air Training Scheme. After these men finished training, the Australian Government had very little influence on where they were posted (hence the fact that many of the Australian airmen in Europe served in RAF squadrons while Australians were often a minority in the RAAF Article XV squadrons!). If Bomber Command hadn't taken part in the campaign the number of Australians involved would have been pretty low. I've added a bit of material on this; the full story of why the Australian Government effectively surrendered thousands of airmen to the RAF is very lengthy and out of this article's scope. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What became of the handful of army officers? Is there anything known of how their experience affected anything?
    • The article notes that almost none of them had returned to Australia prior to the end of the war, so they didn't end up passing on their experiences to the Army. Several of them went on to greater things in their post-war careers, but that's outside the scope of the article (and isn't surprising given that they were among the highest performing officers in the Australian Army at a time in which most men of their age were in the services). Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anything written of the views of the Australian media or the public on the country's involvement in the European theatre?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Doing this as a reciprocal review for Nick-D (talk · contribs), who was kind enough to review John Adair for me. Because it has already been through MILHIST A-class and because my knowledge of military history and terminology is limited, my comments will mostly be confined to copyediting stuff.

Lead:

  • "It has been estimated that about 3,000 Australian military personnel and merchant seamen supported the Allied landings" Whose estimate is this? Speaks to the credibility of the estimate.
    • A couple of historians; I've tweaked the wording to reflect this (there's an end note on the differing figures) Nick-D (talk)!
  • "northern summer of 1944" First time I've run across this language. Obviously, I know why it's being used, since summer "down under" is winter up here, but is this the standard convention (for my own information)? Is it always preferable or equivalent to "between June and August 1944" or "in mid-1944"?
  • "in order to gain experience which they could bring back to Australia" The last part of this phrase seems a little superfluous. Is it necessary, or could the sentence end after "experience"?
    • It's necessary as the intention was that the officers would take part in the landings and then return to Australia to disseminate their experiences to the rest of the Army (eg, it wasn't just for their own benefit as this sentence without the last bit would imply). Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "The Australian air units came under the command of the RAF" This wording sounds like they were under some other command before coming under command of the RAF. If this is the case, when did they come under the RAF's command? If it is not, maybe just say they "were under the command of the RAF".
  • "hundreds of RAN personnel were serving with the Royal Navy" I don't think the abbreviation RAN has been spelled out previously in the article.

Pre-invasion preparations:

  • "Some of those who had planning responsibilities included Lieutenant Colonel Ronald McNicoll, who served on the Operations Staff of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, Air Commodore Frank Bladin, who was the Senior Air Staff Officer for No. 38 Group RAF, Lieutenant Commander Victor Smith who was the Flag Officer, British Assault Area's air planning officer, and Major Douglas Vincent a signals officer attached to the headquarters of the British XXX Corps." I got seriously lost in this list. I'm thinking semi-colons are needed to separate each officer-description pair; that would allow commas between names and descriptions, if needed. I got most of the pairings, but to whom does "British Assault Area's air planning officer" refer?
  • "The Australian-born Air Commodore Edgar McCloughry" You can probably drop "the".
  • Both "sorties" and "dispositions" (in this context) are unfamiliar terms for me, but may be acceptable in this kind of article. Are there more generally-understandable equivalents that would be considered acceptable?
  • "took part in 25 of the 53 such raids" I think you can drop "such" here.
  • "2TAF's fighter-bombers also attacked bridges over the river Seine from April as part of an effort to seal off the Normandy region" Does this mean they started in April and continued until some unspecified date? If so, when did the attacks end? If not, maybe consider "in April" instead of "from April". This same construct appears a couple of paragraphs later.
    • The attacks - in effect - continued until the end of the war as 2TAF operated against the German supply lines as the Allies advanced, so the implication that they were open-ended is correct as there was no clear cut point at which 2TAF stopped bombing bridges and railways - it just moved its focus to the east as the Germans retreated. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British light bomber units took part in a further 14 raids on German batteries" To my ear, using "an additional" instead of "a further" sounds less awkward. Could be a regional variation of English thing, though.
  • "the RAF stepped up its efforts to sink German submarines" Is "stepped up" too colloquial? It appears a couple of sentences later as well, so you might want to change at least one of them regardless.
  • "Coastal Command aircraft succeeded in destroying six submarines" Why not "destroyed" instead of "succeeded in destroying"?
  • "accounted for eight of the 22 bombers" Does this jive with WP:MOSNUM? Seems like they should both be numerals in this case.
  • "36 Australians posted to eight RAF units" Again, check this against WP:MOSNUM.
    • Mark also raised this in the first of his comments above; my view is that this slight inconsistency is the lesser of two evils, but I'd be happy to change to all-numerals if you think its a major problem. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australians at D-Day:

  • "On the night of 5/6 June, and in the early hours of 6 June," Maybe "night" has special military significance, but to me, it seems redundant to use the "5/6 June" construct, then specifically mention "the early hours of 6 June".
  • "and a further 14 No. 467 Squadron bombers attacked batteries at Ouistreham" Seems like you could just drop "a further" here.
  • "dropped "Window" chaff" Is there any way to concisely clarify what this is for the non-expert?
  • "in an attempt to deceive the Germans of the Allies' true intentions" Is this necessary, given that we were just told that these were "diversionary tactics"?
  • "intruder" should be wikilinked on first use instead of in this section.
  • "took part in the "intruder" bombing raids on western Germany and the Low Countries that sought to divert German aircraft away from Normandy" This makes it sound like the Low Countries were seeking to divert German aircraft. I gather that this is not the case, but can the sentence be reworded to avoid the ambiguity?
  • Why is "submarine" linked here, but not in the lead or on first use in the body?
    • Fixed
  • "he received his third DSC for completing this mission" Should the abbreviation "DSC" follow "Distinguished Service Cross" in parentheses on first use?
  • "Meanwhile, after going ashore on D+1, Vincent had served with the XXX Corps" It seems like something is weird with the tenses here. Also, is the designation "D+1" well understood by non-military specialists? (I assume it means the day after the invasion.)
  • "The total number of Australians killed on 6 June was 14, of whom 12 were RAAF airmen and two were members of the RAN" Check against WP:MOSNUM.

Subsequent fighting:

  • "attack on Vire" Is there/should there be an article on this battle that we can link to? Sounds like an interesting affair.
  • "claimed to have destroyed dozens of German vehicles" Is there doubt about those claims?
    • Pretty much - there's no way of verifying them, and the official historian called them 'claims' as a result. The same applies to all air forces of the war, as it was pretty much impossible for airmen to verify the damage they caused to most ground targets. I've tweaked the wording a bit. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • "typically ever assigned to combat units" You can probably drop "ever".
    • I think it's necessary as all of the airmen, including the gunners, typically waited in personnel depots and make-work jobs until they were sent to a combat unit; few of the gunners would have received a posting as soon as they arrived in the UK as the sentence would imply without the word. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commemoration:

  • "The Australian involvement in the Battle of Normandy has also been commemorated" You can probably drop the first "the".
  • Any idea why Australia was initially excluded from the Mémorial de Caen or why it took a decade for their flag to be added?

Overall, I found this a very accessible read for a non-expert, and I'm sure its compilation was a matter of national and personal pride for the author. Well done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 03:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Australian_contribution_to_the_Battle_of_Normandy/archive1&oldid=1075705940"