Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Freddie de Guingand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Freddie de Guingand

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Freddie de Guingand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An article on Freddie de Guingand, Monty's chief of staff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see this article on a key British figure of the war here. I'd like to offer the following comments:

More where this came from. I also overhauled Miles Dempsey. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "De Guingand seems to have been blessed with considerable diplomatic skills" - it's previously stated he learned them on the job
    Re-worded. The lead is actually the original article before I rewrote it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was able to smooth over many difficulties arising from Montgomery's problematic relationships with many of his peers and superiors" - this dodges the issue a bit, as it implies that the difficulties were "problematic relationships" rather than the actual issue of Monty frequently being a jerk to other important military leaders whom he needed to cooperate with
    Changed to "Montgomery's personality and his problematic relationships with many of his peers and superiors." Actually, years of researching the command in NW Europe has given me a better understanding of the motivations of British, who come across as snooty and condescending to Americans then and today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto the corresponding material in the 'North West Europe' section, where the issue should be expanded upon a bit given it's importance.
    I tried to illustrate it with the response to the Battle of the Bulge. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that putting this a bit more bluntly would help. The issue seems to have been that Monty was a high performing jerk who often rubbed other high performing jerks (e.g. Bradley) up the wrong way and was a jerk to his boss from time to time without really meaning to be one. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work here. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support happy to now support this. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901

[edit]

A quality effort on a major figure of the war. Only a few nitpicks:

  • Through the intervention of Montgomery, with whom he served in the 1920s and 1930s and formed a friendship - Might be more concise as Through the intervention of Montgomery. with whom he had formed a friendship with during their shared service
    checkY Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did de Guingand enter Sandhurst before or after the Armistice?
    checkY This required some looking up. It was on 10 September 1918. He would not have been eligible to be sent to the front at this time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article says that he entered ranked 15th in his class. Surely this was his rank on graduation?
    checkY On entry. Emphasised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who scored highest were given places but the remaining positions were filled from others who had passed the exam and were then given a place based on their service record more concise as -- > The highest scorers were guaranteed places but the remainder selected based on service record from those who passed the exam
    checkY Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any details in sources as to any specific reasons that he jumped from a training establishment to a GSO1 position quite rapidly?
    checkY An error in the London Gazette. It should have been GSO2. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • De Guingand asked to be returned to his regiment and this was done --> could be more concise as De Guingand requested to return to his regiment, and reported to its depot on 21 January, but was immediately placed on leave
    checkY Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 25 February his orders were cancelled and he was posted to the new staff college at Haifa in Palestine as an instructor. The war had created an urgent requirement for more trained staff officers --> Due to the urgent wartime requirement for trained staff officers, de Guingand's orders were cancelled on 25 February and he was posted...
    checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there more details in the sources as to why de Guingand started planning for the pullout of British forces in Greece at such an early date, before the German invasion even started (or was Ultra a factor in this)? Also, did the political consequences of such planning motivate Wavell to order de Guingand to scrap the plans? These sentences should also mention that the successful German invasion was the reason that the troops needed to be evacuated
    checkY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • accurately forecast the Axis capture of Tobruk --> correctly predicted...
    checkY Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • vice Brigadier Jock Whiteley - this is jargon to the general reader, suggest just using 'replaced'
    Looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Sir Claude Auchinleck was Commander-in-Chief Middle East and commander of the Eighth Army and Dorman-Smith - Change to --> while Dorman-Smith to avoid repetition of 'and's
    checkY Re-written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how there were conflicting command structures since Auchinleck was clearly senior to Dorman-Smith?
    checkY Within the staff, since there were essentially two chiefs of staff: Dorman-Smith (DCGS ME) and Whiteley (BGS Eighth Army). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link COSSAC
    To what article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Frederick E. Morgan? This might be one of the more important D-Day subjects still without an article.
    checkY Add a linked reference to Frederick Morgan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • and his partnership with Montgomery has been compared - by whom?

Kges1901 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2022 (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/Freddie_de_Guingand&oldid=1096854735"