Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Arras (1917)

Battle of Arras (1917)

An article worked up from a stub, any and all comments welcome. Note that a copyedit has already been requested from the League of Copyeditors. Carom 19:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

Quite nice, overall. Some suggestions:

A longer lead would be warranted at this stage.
- Done, although I'm sure it could still be longer. Carom 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Forces" section is too stubby. If the section can't be expanded, it should probably be absorbed into one of the surrounding ones.
- Section absorbed for now. Carom 00:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The online references need more detail (at a minimum, dates of access).
- Done, I think. Carom 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maps would be very helpful. WWI is fairly well-illustrated by the West Point cartography department; there ought to be something useful there.
- I've added some images (and a map), although I'll see if I can't photoshop out a closeup of the Arras sector from the West Point map. Carom 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, the article is still quite brief; if there's additional material that can be easily worked in, that may be appropriate. Kirill Lokshin 11:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies

You've made a good job of a fiendishly complicated subject. A few observations ... Arras was rather more than a diversion. It had political and strategic advantages. Perhaps the article needs more context.

Arras (town) was in the same position as Ypres; an Allied bulge extending into German-held territory and high ground around. It, too, had become iconic. Arras, like Ypres, came in for a terrible battering. Thus, success relieved the pressure.
There were huge advantages in straightening the line (a straight front line requires fewer men than a bendy one).
The high ground at Notre-Dame de Lorette and Vimy really does utterly dominate the entire landscape. It was crucial to take this for any push in the area ever to work.
This was one of many attempts to sort out the high ground. I think this was the Third Battle of Arras (British) and there had been two or three Battles of Artois (almost as costly for the French as Verdun) (squabbling over the same ground). It was extremely important for France.
The Canadians fought at Vimy for the first time as a Corps. It is hugely significant to Canada. The Vimy battle plan (rolling barrage, bite and hold) was developed by the Canadian commander, Currie. This became the standard British/Dominion tactic. No mention of him among the commanders.
Large numbers of troops were brought up to the Front underground by narrow-gauge train in specially constructed tunnels: this was a first.
The formidable nature of the defences at Vimy are underplayed. Rupprecht of Bavaria (field marshal, crown prince, and thoroughly good chap) was in personal charge.
A detailed map would be helpful for this.
Nomenclature: To my mind, British and Dominion troops sits better perhaps than British Empire troops.

Roger 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first three points are good ones - I will edit the "background" section to reflect this information.

Your fourth and sixth points, about Vimy, is also good, but there is an entire article on Vimy where those issues can be given the proper treatment. I will make a minor expansion of the Vimy section in this article, but I don't think there's much point in rehashing the entire Vimy Ridge article.

Your fifth point, about the trains, is interesting; do you have a reference for this? I have not seen it mentioned (the tunnels, yes, but not the trains), so I am hesitant to add it without a citation.

Your seventh point, the map - a better, custom map has been requested.

Your eight point, nomenclature - it's a matter of indifference to me, although I would prefer to use whatever language is most commonly used by reputable historians (most of whom seem to avoid the issue entirely and use country names, which is rather impractical for the purpose of, say, the "outcome" line of the infobox).

Many thanks for your comments. Carom 16:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth and sixth: I concur. A mention ...
Fifth point: They ran from the Arras boves. Here's a very partial map: Grange Tunnel map, shows railway tunnel. Otherwise
- Alexander Barrie, The War Underground: Tunnellers of the Great War (2000) ISBN 978-1862270817
- Peter Barton, Beneath Flanders Fields: The Tunnellers War 1914-1918 (2006) ISBN 978-1862273573
Eighth Point: Canadian and Australians were Empire troops, of course, but Dominion is more precise. It jumped out at me from the infobox and got me in pedant mode. :)
Finally, a really good read about Arras which isn't on your source list is: Jon Nichols, Cheerful Sacrifice (2006) ISBN 978-1844153268

Roger 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also not that you are more than welcome to contribute to the article directly (indeed, I would encourage it, as you seem to know a great deal about the topic). The article is by no means my own personal fiefdom. Carom 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I have my hands very full at the moment but may well do so when things are quieter. You've done a good article: it's a fiendishly complicated subject.

Roger 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnelling. I've found references: subways for walking and tramways for hand-pulled or light mechanised rolling stock. I'll work it in somewhere.
Checked nomenclature. British troops are Imperial troops. Dominion troops came from: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. Empire or Colonial troops came from elsewhere. Can be cumbersome. Why not use BEF instead of British Empire?
I've been working on somnething to help post something soon put the battle into its overall context. I'll post it soon.
References and Notes: I prefer these in one section (WP:GTL) because they are so intimately interlinked. I personally prefer the references first so that they are obvious. When including many notes, again to make cross-reference easy I prefer them in two or three columns. In the light of this, does anyone object if they are so presented?
Overlapping footnotes: (^ a b Strachan, 243; ^ Strachan, 243-244; ^ a b Strachan, 244) Might be consolidated?
Does anyone object to Harvard referencing? (Author + year of Pub)

Roger 19:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harvard referencing: I think it'd be something of a mess here, since you're going to have (discursive) footnotes anyways; but the citation is not so complicated that it couldn't be done if desired. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the references, yes, I object to consolidating "notes" and "references" into one section. I think the appearance is much cleaner as two distinct sections; additionally, practice is that "notes" appear before "references." I don't, however, object to a two-column presentation of the notes.

I'm indifferent on the overlapping footnotes.

I also object to Harvard referencing (I prefer CMS, I just haven't got around to correctly formatting everything). Carom 19:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climie.ca

Just one suggestion.

It might be good to have a bit more expansion on each of the individual sections of the battle (First Battle of the Scarpe, just as an example) Climie.ca 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Land

Looks very nice. A few questions/comments:

What sort of gas was used?
The image of the front lines is a very good one but isn't uploaded at high enough resolution to be able to see it properly.

A further thought: I always think lists of medals awarded by one side is a bit, well, one-sided. Can the list of VC winners go anywhere else? Regards, The Land 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]