Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2021 [1].

British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the next in my series on logistics of the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945. The "Siegfried Line campaign" is not an official designation, but nor is it a Wikipedia one. When the American official historians were preparing their series of works back in 1945, the American official designation for the campaign that came after the breakout and pursuit is "Rhineland", but the historians felt that it covered too many battles, and divided it in two: the Siegfried Line campaign (the actions of the US First and Ninth Armies in the north) and the Lorraine campaign (the actions of the US Third and Seventh Armies in the south). For our purposes, we have them both under the umbrella of the Siegfried Line campaignbox, along with the British and Canadian actions. The British divided the period into four phases: the advance from Brussels to the Nederrijn (Operation Market Garden), the Channel Ports (clearing the Channel Coast), the Opening of Antwerp (Battle of the Scheldt) and the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge). This article therefore covers the logistics of the 21st Army Group in the period from September 1944 to January 1945; the earlier period from June to September 1944 has been covered in British logistics in the Normandy campaign, and that leaves the campaigns of 1945 for a future article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I provided a pedantic source review of this article during its A-class review, and was very impressed with the article and the range of sources used. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • " in the Second World War operations " - bit clunky
    Changed the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para of the lead should note that while the advance through Normandy was slower than planned, the advance through the rest of France and Belgium was much quicker given the German collapse
    Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the 'Organisation' section note briefly how logistics for the small national conventional forces (the Polish armoured division, Czechs, Free Dutch brigade, etc) that were serving with the British and Canadians were managed? I presume that they were treated as if they were British or Canadian units.
    Noted briefly; there isn't much written about this. But your presumption is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Market Garden' section doesn't seem to cover the difficulties the British had resupplying the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem? The huge, very brave and not entirely successful supply dropping operation deserves some coverage.
    Added a section about Market logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a 'Queen Mary transporter'?
    Linked to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Civilian labour was utilised at the bases in a variety of other tasks to enable military personnel to be released for work in forward areas." I might delete "other" (what does it add?) and change "work" to "service".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "90,000 civilians were employed by the 21st Army Group, of whom half were employed in workshops" were employed/were employed
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which included RAF personnel and prisoners of war," On the assumption these POWs were German etc, I would suggest adding "Axis" before "prisoners". Otherwise there's a bit of an ambiguity.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and agreements were signed with France and Poland in 1939 and 1940, and the Czechoslovak, Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian governments in exile in 1941.[29][30]" If this says that the agreement with Poland was in 1940, wasn't it a government in exile by then?
    The first agreement with Poland was in October 1939. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The BSDs held five days' supplies for the army." should there be an "each" after BSDs? Otherwise perhaps a "cumulatively"?
    Re-worded to make this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grave is double-linked.
    So it is. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and when the 21st Army Group requested permission to railway terminal, SHAEF re-allocated it to British control on 23 October." to railway terminal?
    Added missing words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coasters and landing ships had been in continuous use since D-Day, resulting in wear and tear, and an ever-increasing proportion were deadlined for repairs, and the deteriorating autumn weather did not help." the multiple "and"s read awkwardly.
    Re-worded to "The coasters and landing ships had been in continuous use since D-Day, resulting in wear and tear. As the deteriorating autumn weather set in, an ever-increasing proportion were deadlined for repairs." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done through "Ports", more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two systems were planned: the first, with a pumping station codenamed "Bambi" was established at Sandown on the Isle of Wight would supply fuel to a terminal near Cherbourg, 65 nautical miles (120 km; 75 mi) distant;" I think the "would" is causing problems. Maybe "to" and additional commas?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that stocking of the advanced base would continue until it held 14 days' reserves and 14 days' working margin prescribed by the War Office.[141][79]" refs out of order, unless intended so.
    Swapped them around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was highly undesirable for Hospitals to be under canvas under winter conditions." why the capital?
    Typo. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the legacy section, can anything be said about how having such a logistics campaign affected the next phase of the war? Or, to quote Southey, "But what good came of it at last?" (quoth little Peterkin)
    Added a couple more sentences about preparations for the 1945 campaigns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

The A-Class review closed before I could finish my statements. Reserving this spot here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 162 FMC [...] No. 162 FMC [...] 161 FMC [...] No. 161 FMC Standardize.
    Standardised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were supplemented by hired and requisitioned Belgian civilian animal transport. Was there Belgian military animal transport? And did they hire horses?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bierghes and Quenast aren't linked.
    No articles in English, so linked to the French and Dutch articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Railways. Will resume tomorrow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This work was carried out by British Army, civilian and POW workers. I can see the case for not including a "the" before "British Army", but this is kind of awkward without it. Maybe "[...] was carried out by enlisted British, French civilian and POW workers."?
No, it means it was carried out by British Army workers, and civilian workers, and POW workers. It is fine as it is.

Reading finished. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual masterclass. Just the pit props I have come back on, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Pass per my review at the ACR, assuming no images have been added in the interim (t · c) buidhe 12:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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/British_logistics_in_the_Siegfried_Line_campaign/archive1&oldid=1055031274"