Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Tractable

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Tractable

Closed as promoted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has undergone two copyedits in the last week (one by EyeSerene, the other by SGGH. Passed its GAN on June 16/17 (depending on which time-zone you're in). Respectfully submit for A-Class Review. Cam (Chat) 18:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment Cam for your consideration. This was the biggest encirclement as far as I know by any of the Western allies in World War II - yet it was far far smaller than many of the encirclements on the Eastern Front. Don't know whether you wish to note that or not. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 23:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily work in the bit about being the largest western encirclement, but I'm not sure about how I can work in the Eastern Front bit (I will try though). Cam (Chat) 23:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The encirclement at Falaise was the largest encirclement in the West during World War II, but it pales in comparison with the large encirclements on the Eastern Front, such as during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.' - How's that? Buckshot06(prof) 05:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!. I think that should be good. Cam (Chat) 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Maybe it's just me about to go to bed, but this: Canadian casualties for Operation Tractable are unknown. However, casualty figures for the combined losses during Totalize and Tractable are put at 5,500 Canadian casualties, 1,470 of these fatal. seems to contradict itself. How can the casualty figures for Tractable be unknown but then be added to those for Totalize to come to a rough figure?

Yeah, I'll reword that. Cam (Chat) 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Although the Falaise gap had narrowed to a few hundred yards in the lead seems a bit vague. I'd suggest either a more precise figue or rewording it somehow. Otherwise, it's a good article. I'll look it over again tomorrow when I have more time. Skinny87 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Cam (Chat) 07:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe it meets the criteria, good work. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Comment. A few comments on the article:[reply]

Can you estimate the strength in personnel of the forces involved in the infobox? Divisions and brigades can differ in size from nation to nation. For example, an "army" in the Imperial Japanese Army was actually equivalent in size to a corps in the United States Army during World War II. So, just giving the strength in units can be unclear.

Done for German & Polish forces. Cam (Chat) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would expand the background section by another paragraph at least to provide more details on how the Polish, Canadian, and German forces involved got to the positions they were in at the beginning of the battle, even though more background is probably provided in the Operation Totalize article.

Done. Cam (Chat) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I belive one-paragraph sections make the article look too "choppy". I would recommend combining one paragraph sections with either the preceeding or subsequent sections or else expanding them to at least two paragraphs. Also, I don't think it's necessary to use dates as section headings, instead use the other titles you already have, such as "Opening phase", etc, then put the dates, in wiki-linked format, into the text.

Done (I think). Cam (Chat) 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any maps available of the battle or of the area in which the battle took place that you could add to the article? Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking all over for maps of Operation Tractable. I've found several non-free ones that I'll try to convert to a rendered map once this thing is done (it's on my to-do list for the article). Cam (Chat) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that this review be extended for 3 days so as to garner further comment, as only 3 users have actually responded to the ACR, and only one has indicated a support or oppose position. Cam (Chat) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I've made a few tweaks to the article, correcting some redirects, dabs, a few cases of AE/BE issues, etc. The article seems to be well written, comprehensive, and appears to be neutral; the sourcing appears to be more than adequate, photographs are in order in terms of licensing, etc. The only thing I would like to see is a map or two, but Climie has indicated he's got that in mind. I can find no real problems with the article. Greak work all around! Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've done a great job here; this has considerably expanded since my GA review, and is a far more rounded and much improved article as a result. Just a couple of points:

From Offensive strategy, "...although the 272nd Grenadier Infantry Division had been withdrawn on 10 August". If the division had been withdrawn anyway, why mention them?

That's a good point. I'll fix that. Cam (Chat) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Cam (Chat) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hill 262 (Mont Ormel) para 1: Is the description "two strong SS Panzer divisions" a little exaggerated? Both 2nd and 9th SS Pz were shadows of their former selves by this point.

Maybe "well trained SS Panzer Divisions"? Granted, the 9th didn't take nearly the beating that the 12th & 1st had. Cam (Chat) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we identify the lone "Panzer" on Point 239 (also in Hill 262 (Mont Ormel))? If not, perhaps we could call it a "German tank" rather than a Panzer - I think using 'panzer' when we mean 'tank' comes over as jargon.

That's a good point. Fixed. Cam (Chat) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, watch those caps! There's no need to capitalise things like "armoured division" unless part of a unit name ;)

Aye Caramba, that's always been a problem of mine (I think my left Hand sOmeTiMes AccIdenTaLlly moves oVer to tHe shIft keY. i'LL look it over and see if I can find any mistakes. Cam (Chat) 14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 08:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.