Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Omaha Beach

Omaha Beach

First big edit and a lot more work than I anticipated. I think it's finished but I can't see the woods for the trees anymore. I would really appreciate it if others could have a look and let me know how I can improve it. I have a couple of days before real life intrudes and I take a wikibreak for a month or so, but I will watch and action recommendations as and when I can. Thanks. --FactotEm 16:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to express my appreciation for the review of this article. I have done what I can to incorporate the comments. I believe the biggest issue now remains the lack of any narrative on the impact - I did try but it would only have been a snatched attempt and not good enough. I'll continue to try and improve the article when I get the chance. In the meantime I have added a comment to the discussion page highlighting this review. Thank you. --FactotEm 10:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Land

Good work! A very thorough account of the American efforts on Omaha. A couple of specifics about the article as it stands:

The frequent references to companies (e.g. B/116) is inevitable but can be confusing; can you explain the terminology in a more prominent place (e.g. the first para of 'Plan of Attack')?

I think the article needs a bit of information about the impact of the battle; concluding at the end of the first day of fighting leaves a lot unsaid. What effect did the landings at Omaha have on the rest of the Normandy campaign and why?

In the lead section, another paragraph outlining the impact and the casualty figures would be helpful (the lead is meant to sum up the whole article).

Are there more sources you can refer to? It is always best, particularly with history, to draw on a range of sources

The biggest issue with the article as stands is that it's entirely written from an Amercan perspective. How did the German defence of the beach compare with their plans? How did the 716th and 352nd respond to the German attack and did it matter? What were the famous quotes, medal citations and casualty figures for the German side? As it stands, all your work has created a very good half of an article - but the other half is necessary to make it into a great Wikipedia article. The Land 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. I have added some detail about the composition of the units involved to the 'plan of attack' section and introduced there how the companies are represented in the article. Two very good points about the impact and the German side - I basically ran out of time but do intend to address these as time permits (and that will then also take care of the lead). I'll also try and dig out some more sources. Do I need to worry about the length of the article? I read that there is a preference for a limit of 32Kb and this is already at 42Kb. --FactotEm 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about length at this stage. Have a look at WP:LENGTH; if you do end up with a very long article then it's relatively easy to split off sections if appropriate and necessary. The Land 07:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carom

I would echo most of The Land's comments, particularly with regards to the need to discuss the aftermath of the battle (i.e. consequences and impact) and the German perspective. I would also note that there are a great number of very, very, very short sections, which is not ideal, as it can hinder readability. It is possible that some of them might be combined in order for the article to "flow" better. You might also consider that the "dramatizations" section could be expanded - some of these are fairly significant, and probably warrant some discussion. Carom 17:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks go to you too. I've merged the shortest sections that appear in the 'Breakthrough section'. The other main offender is the 'Second Assault Wave' section but I'm not sure about eliminating the sections there. Are they as bad for readability? --FactotEm 19:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. Found a way to do it and I think it looks a whole lot better. Thank you. --FactotEm 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]