Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Falaise pocket
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 31 March 2009 [1].
Falaise pocket edit
- Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a high-quality article and meets all criteria. The article has been promoted to A-Class within Milhist project on 15 February. Eurocopter (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett comments
- "ULTRA intercepts of Enigma traffic" is (to my mind) a jargon heavy clause to appear in the introduction. perhaps "Allied intelligence" would suffice. The intro mentions the capture of German soldiers but not the loss of materiel. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Falaise pocket...was the encirclement and destruction" doesn't strike me as grammatically correct. A "pocket" is a thing, "encirclement" and "destruction" are actions. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with the copyedit finished. Excellent work once again! Cam (Chat) 22:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tech.Review
- Dabs are
notup to speed (checked with the checker tool)
There is 1 dab needing to be fixed
- External links (checked with the checker tool) are up to speed.
- Ref formatting (checked with WP:REFTOOLS script) is
notup to speed.
The following ref is duplicated and appears in the ref section more than once, a ref name should be used instead.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicated link fixed. The dab links are to the Battle of Normandy, which itself redirects to Normandy Campaign... which is a dab page. The problem is that although Battle of Normandy is the 'official' term, it's used differently by different historians and none of the related links are 100% suitable. We could pipe to Operation Overlord, but that's already linked and again means different things to different people. I guess removing the link altogether would also work. It seems Wikipedia is slightly confused on this; it's something we need to work on ;) EyeSerenetalk 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs are
- Media Review: All images are in the public domain. I moved the ones that were not already there to Commons. Everything looks good on that regard. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide the year for D'Este? BuddingJournalist 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
image comment - Images should be alternated left and right 23:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I missed this, point it out, but you seem to just mention the failure to close the gap quickly, and not go into why very much. Patton was highly critical of the Allied handling of this battle. He felt the Allies could easily have won an even more decisive victory. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - I meant to raise this during my copyedit (but forgot :P). Hastings partly blames Montgomery because, having already seen the poor Canadian performance during Totalize, he continued to use them rather than the British to drive on Trun; he attributes it to Monty's desire for 'neatness' in not wanting to switch around two entire armies during an offensive. However, IIRC I've read elsewhere that it was just the usual Patton whine about having his bid for newspaper headlines delayed, and that given his less-than-spectacular performance in assaulting prepared German positions (as opposed to manoeuvre) and the difficulties he had getting into Argentan, there's no reason to think that he would have performed any better. I'll try to go through my stuff tonight and add something in. EyeSerenetalk 08:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as mentioned on the talk page i think that the two sets of stats, regarding the number of trapped and escaped German soldiers, needs to be discussed somewhere in the article at least in the aftermath section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Support - excellent article, well sourced and everything seems to check out.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good addition on dispute by EyeSerene. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.