Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Liberation of Arnhem

Liberation of Arnhem

I totally rewrote this article when I came across it last year and after a bit of work I got it to GA. I read another book with some useful info over Christmas and have extended the article a fair bit, using more detail from a few older sources as well. I've never taken an article above GA before and would welcome a few opinions on where this one could go.

A few specifics I'd welcome advice on:

Scope: This is pretty much all the sources I've found for a battle that normally only gets a single line in most Second World War history books. With that in mind I wonder how much more it can grow and whether there's enough here for A class or FA.
Alt text: My first try so I'd welcome some opinions, or if you can do better please go ahead.
The map: I can't seem to create good SVG files. One that I used looked significantly worse on my computers when I inserted it into the article than the JPEG I'm currently using. If anyone can convert this to a viewable SVG I'd be very grateful.
Corry as a source: Corry's work is an official Army HQ Report from the 50's and is perhaps a little close to a Primary source (although it might be secondary as he bases his work on real primary sources like war diaries, orders etc...). I've culled his cites a fair bit now, so he's only used ten times.

Thanks in advance! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

I think that this is an excellent article on an interesting topic. Having worked on articles concerning topics for which there's no comprehensive sources, I think that I have some idea about how much work when into this. The broad range of sources you've drawn on speak for themselves. Accordingly, my suggestions for further improvement are all pretty minor:

The article needs a copy edit to convert passive text into the active voice
The article mainly focuses on the Allied side of the story - can more be added on the German experiences?
The single paragraph sections should be combined into longer sections
Arnhem is referred to as a 'city' in the lead and a 'town' in the 'The first battle of Arnhem' section
The {{main}} template shouldn't be used for red links
I don't think that the link to Operation Goldflake adds much given that article is presently only a sentence (though it does cover an interesting topic)
The Canadian official history appears to be out of copyright, and there's an excellent map from it on Hyperwar you could add from here
Does the British official history have any coverage of this battle? Nick-D (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Nick, useful comments.

I expected this. I need to leave the prose alone for a week or two and then reread it to be able to tackle it, so I'll do that soon.
I really can't find any more about the German forces which is a shame. I like to try and balance articles, but all of my sources are rather predictably a little Allied orientated. While I was googling it I was a little flattered to find that this article appears to be the best a lot of other people can find as well! I've reworked a few sentences to try and change the perspective a little bit, but short of finding a good source I'm not sure what else I can do....

I've had that happen to some articles I've worked on as well; it does make you realise that a lot of people read Wikipedia and it can be a great way of raising awareness of overlooked but significant historical incidents like this one. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Do you think I should do the Aftermath section as well?

Yes, I think so. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It's a city, but most sources describe it as a town because of its small size at the time. Middlebrook actually states early on that he'll refer to it as a town throughout his book.
I wondered about this when I did it, but I couldn't find anything about it on the template. I personally don't mind redlinks and I was hoping that this one might lead to someone creating an article about this area of the war that's fairly sparsely covered on wiki (doesn't seem to have worked yet!). Still, if you think it's more appropriate do you think something like a link here or here will be better?

Neither of those links seems really appropriate. The liberation of Holland is a very viable topic for an article (from my understanding, its also somewhat controversial), so it might be best to not include a background link here until its created. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done
That's awsome, thanks. I'll investigate it later.
That's a very good point. Apparently my local library has a copy so I'll check later this week.

Let me know if you can't find a copy; my university library definitely has one. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Nick, Ranger Steve (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ellis does give a bit more info than most books - two sentences more in fact! He does however have a footnote on the German defenders, so I'll add that to the article when I remember to take a pen to the library. I'll do some more editing on the article and integrate your other comments. Do you have any thoughts on my original concerns Nick? Ranger Steve (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This upcoming book looks like it may be useful Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anotherclown

Looks good so far. Just a drive by from me:

You should probably use the 'convert' template for distances e.g. 3 kilometres (1.9 mi)
There shouldn't be spaces between an emdash and text per WP:MOS
The aftermath section seems like it has too many headings which makes it seem disjointed - its only a personal preference of course but I would consider turning into a couple of paragraphs with no sub headings.

I hope these suggestions help. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Anotherclown, and for your tidying of the article. I'll integrate your comments when I copyedit the page. If you drive by again, do you have any thoughts on my concerns listed above? Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one of your points Anotherclown, I was actually using spaced endashes in the article, which is allowed under MoS (and I personally prefer it). I have gone through and inserted the correct HTML code in case they show up differently on other computers though. Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's been a month now I'll close this review and start incorporating the ideas into the article when I have time. Thanks gents. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]