Talk:British logistics in the Normandy campaign

Featured articleBritish logistics in the Normandy campaign is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 6, 2023.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2018Good article nomineeListed
February 23, 2018WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
June 11, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 17, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that British logistics in the Normandy Campaign depended on a Mulberry harbour?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:British logistics in the Normandy Campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this very interesting article over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

My comments are now all addressed, and I'm pleased to pass this nomination Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Assessment

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Pluto

edit

Surely here must be a mention about Operation Pluto soon? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I thought about it, and wrote something at one point, but it didn't come into operation until September, so I deferred it to a successor article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Point taken. Thank you. ps. wonderful article btw. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

CE

edit

Did a cheeky little ce, blammed a couple of typos, changed a few sentences for flow and rv a couple of dupe wikilinks. Checked for dupes, Auto Edded, revised Engvar B and left a couple of questions via < ! - - hidden in the text; pls revert as desired, all edits suggestive. I thought the article was a tour de force and well worth the time and effort of all concerned. Wiki at its best. Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I've addressed the questions. Reverted to some technical terms. (One problem with English is that so many words have both technical meanings and colloquial ones. (Did you know what dollars and cents mean when we are talking about nuclear reactors?) Two minor corrections: the 21st Army Group did not entirely consist of men (mostly, but not entirely) and the damage to the railways was not entirely due to bombing (again, mostly but not entirely). Also, never ever change the EngVar on an article. (Especially not to EngVarB, which is just a placeholder.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Also, if you could drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercury Seven/archive1 with a review, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I thought it was in Briteng? Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

on the multinational element

edit

don't know if this counts as burying the lead but having name dropped that there were units other than Commonwealth in 21st Army Group, nothing more is made of whether this did or did not affect logistics. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is it only British logistics?

edit

Unless I'm reading the lead wrong, shouldn't this article be titled something like "Anglo-Canadian logistics in the Normandy campaign" to refer to the multinational 21st Army Group? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

From British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany: "Although it contained personnel from many nations, the logistical support was British... throughout the campaign in North-West Europe, there was virtually no separate Canadian supply organization other than what existed within First Canadian Army itself. The great majority of Canadian requirements, including ordnance stores, ammunition, petroleum products, most engineer, medical and dental stores, rations, office machinery and other supplies, were provided through British channels."
Added a summary of that to this article too. The other article is up for review at FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1. If you could drop by with comments, it would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply