Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Messines (1917)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Messines (1917) edit

Nominator(s): Keith-264 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it has been substantially revised since the GA review and the recent peer review so needs to move on to the next step. I hope to learn enough to begin reviewing and to work through the rest of the "3rd Ypres" pages before the centenaries. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing comment: several of your References entries have no corresponding footnotes - try this script to see the errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have removed redundant references to talk page temporarily.Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: G'day, Keith, just a few quick comments from me at this stage. I will try to take another look after someone else has taken a more comprehensive look. As I've done a few edits (30+), I might be a little too close to the article to give it a full review.
    • "Research in the last two decades": I suggest rewording this to provide some sort of date range, otherwise it will need to be updated as time goes on;
      • Changed it to be specific.
    • Note # 4: "...54 100–130 mm guns, 24 150mm guns" --> this should probably use a slightly different presentation to avoid confusion, for instance "...fifty-four 100–130 mm guns, twenty-four 150mm guns";
      • Done.
    • in the References section, are there any more details that can added for the "Historical outline of the federalisation of Belgium" source? Is this a book, or a website? Currently it uses the cite book template, but if it is a website, I'd suggest changing it to cite web and adding the accessdate for consistency with the other website references;
      • How do I do a "cite web"? (i.e. is there a wiki page showing the form)
    • inconsistency: "Hart & Steel" in the short citations, but in the References "Steel, N.; Hart, P. (2001)";
      • Done
    • in the External links section, some of the links are not actually "external links" and would be better either cut out altogether (if already linked to in the body of the text), or moved to a dedicated "See also" section per WP:LAYOUT. I would suggest definately cutting the links to "Western Front (World War I)" and "Third Battle of Ypres", as they are already linked in the article itself. The other two might not be necessary, either, but that is a judgement call that I will leave up to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put a lot of things there early on, which were already on the page from previous editors so I've no objection to moving them. I'll look up layout.Keith-264 (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the cite web page, I haven't found a literary source for the belgium reference though. If you cite a book with the origional edition then add the reprint edition you're using does the harv follow the reprint date? I hope so as that's what I've done. [no I haven't I've used the original date!] Are the External Links ok now? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 12:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the ext links look good to me now. The harv links also seem fine for the works with reprint dates (the links click through). The only final suggestion I have is to make the See also section a level two header, rather than a level three. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also done. I had a look at the pages attached to the Somme 1916 page, to practice B-class assesment as promised and managed to start re-writing it so I'll have another try today on some of the other pages.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spent a bit of time this morning copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my changes and tweak anything you don't agree with. I have added my support for promotion of this article to A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, this link doesn't seem to be working (in the German Fourth Army counter-attacks section): Stoßtruppen. Are you able to try to fix it? I had a crack, but couldn't get the mark up to work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd reorder part of your lead sentence to read thus: First World War offensive by the British Second Army, under the command of General Herbert Plumer, on the Western Front near the village of Messines in West Flanders in Belgium.
  • Capitalize division and divisional when used after a number because it's a proper noun. Forex 11th Division.
  • On the flip side Corps Heavy Artillery, etc., should not be capitalized because it doesn't refer to a specific unit, just a type.
  • I'd like to see at least a summary listing of the forces involved on both sides before the prelude section with a link to a more detailed order of battle list.
  • The maps are useful, but higher-resolution versions would be much easier to read.
  • What do you mean by corps aircraft?
    • Described
  • Link to Major General Franks, both the rank and he himself.
    • No link so gave his name
  • Wouldn't "all in addition to the field artillery" read better than all superimposed on the field artillery? I'm stopping at the Battle section for now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've used "Division" since it's part of a title 11th Division and not capitalised for plural and divisional because they are common nouns rather than titles. I capitalised Corps Heavy Artillery following Edmonds and Farndale under the impression that they were proper nouns.

I'll add a description of corps and army wings (one each per RFC brigade). Maps are the best of a bad job. Franks dosn't have a wiki page but I've added his initials. Re-did the lead sentence and Every 45 yards (41 m) of front had a medium or heavy howitzer for bombardment, which required 378 guns, with 38 super-heavy guns and howitzers, (5% of the total) deployed with the field artillery that was due to fire the creeping and standing barrages.. I'll do the OOB tomorrow.

Thanks for the suggestions, they're gratefully received.Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OOB done, details in a note, (there's another one later in the article, maybe redundant now?).Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC organisation noted.Keith-264 (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "running north from Ploegsteert ("Plugstreet") Wood–Messines–Wytschaete–Mt. Sorrel": I'm not sure what this means. Maybe this? "running north from Ploegsteert Wood through Messines, Wytschaete and finally Mt. Sorrel". Also, I believe "Mt" is more common than "Mt." in BritEng, but if you find "Mt. Sorrel" predominates in BritEng, of course go with that.
    • Looked on Wiki, allows both.
  • "Fourth Army", "4th Army": consistency
    • Done.
  • "The Second Army contained five corps, of which three conducted the attack, with a corps available in "General Headquarters reserve" (GHQ reserve) and two corps on the northern flank, not engaged in the main operation.": I'm not sure how that adds up.
    • Reworded.
  • "from which the British intended to conduct the "Northern Operation", to advance to Passchendaele ridge, leading to the capture of the Belgian coast up to the Dutch frontier.": to advance to Passchendaele ridge and then capture the ...
    • Reworded
  • "the capture of Messines ridge, (part of the southern arc of the Ypres Salient)": either drop the comma or replace the parentheses by commas
    • Comma refers to the rest of the sentence. (I prefer brackets to two commas).
      • Right, that's what I'm saying, that's a punctuation error; commas almost never go in front of parentheses. (Another comma error I'm seeing: never separate a simple subject from its predicate by a comma.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to the effects of": after. See WP:Checklist#because.
    • Done
  • "When it became apparent that the Nivelle Offensive (16 April – 9 May 1917) had failed to achieve its most ambitious objectives, Haig instructed the Second Army to capture the Messines–Wytschaete ridge as soon as possible,[11] to force the Germans to move troops from the French on the Aisne front, who had become demoralised amid the failure of the Nivelle Offensive, leading to many mutinies.": Split the sentence.
    • Done
  • "Messines ridge", "Messines Ridge": consistency. I'd go with "Messines Ridge", provided there's support for that in some sources. If you don't capitalize Ridge, you need a "the" in front of the phrase, usually.
    • I can't make up my mind if the term is a proper noun. The sources vary so I tend to follow the usage in the Official History which distinguished between titles and descriptions - Battle of Messines Ridge and ridge, that geographical feature at Messines.
      • A-class requires consistency within any one article in what you call something; you capitalize "Ridge" (in a caption, I believe) ... so either go with caps or lowercase at each occurrence. Personally, I'd uppercase based on what I'm seeing in your article; it would be tedious to stick in "the" in so many places (and maybe tedious for the reader, too). - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overlooked": Generally, avoid this word in this sense, since it more often means "not observed by mistake"
    • I'm not convinced that the gentle reader is this ignorant but as a superannuated 1970s egalitarian I'm open to persuasion. Oh as it happens there's a wikilink describing the geographical term, which I've added.
      • Readability is hard for every writer. Yes, the readers can figure out all sorts of things; the goal is not to make them back up too often when they realize from context that a word they were expecting to mean one thing means something else. I agree that this one is a judgment call, and that's fine. And I'm also a 1970s egalitarian. - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Land Drainage Companies": lowercase, probably
    • Copied from the OH, taken to be a title.
      • It might need a little description or context, then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK.
  • "(50 m))": avoid the double parens. Also, this sentence feels a bit too detailed for prose to me.
    • Done
  • Skipping down a bit:
  • "... Messines ridge, where it met Menin ridge led to the frontage of the 204th (Württemberg) Division being kept to 2,600 yards (2,400 m).": ... Messines ridge, where it met Menin ridge, kept the frontage of the 204th (Württemberg) Division at 2,600 yards (2,400 m).
    • Changed.
  • "southeast": It's usually "south-east" in BritEng, although the American "southeast" is also well-represented.
    • Typo blammed
  • " In the southeast, 4,800 yards (4,400 m) astride the Douve River was defended by the 40th Division.": I don't know what "astride" means here.
    • Edited
  • Otherwise, So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Battle_of_Messines_(1917)#Prelude. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the trouble, it's my first go at an A-class so all suggestions gratefully received. I've tinkered with it so much that a fresh pair of eyes is a great help. There may be inconsistency in the page, because I haven't removed previous writing (except where it's wrong according to the sources I've got).Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a good call to bring this article to A-class, and the general style is quite good; it would be a bad call to bring it to FAC before first going through all the prose carefully and fixing the kinds of problems I've been mentioning. They don't like fix-it-as-you-go there. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll capitalise Ridge rather than "the" them. ;O). As for commas, is there a difference between American and English usage?Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many, but we've generally been able to keep everyone happy with some straightforward compromises. See for instance WP:COMMA (and note that the comma is after the parens in the first example, not before). If you can search for specific strings on a page or website, pull up any website where you like the style, and search for ", (" ... you'll get few hits, at least in running prose. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've R'd the ridge but can see that I've been inconsistent over deciding which terms are proper nouns. I try not to litter the prose with capitals and I fear I've gone too far sometimes. I had tended to treat a comment in parentheses as an aside so the comma has gone before, since it refers to the next clause.Keith-264 (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links check out [2] (no action required).
    • Images lack Alt Text [3] so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images are all public domain and seem appropriate to the article, although some may need PD-US tags (I'm no expert on images - perhaps Grandiose might be able to check these out for you).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations [4] (no action required).
    • Infobox
      • Units could be added to provide an overview. If your not familar with this parameter have a look at Battle of Long Tan for an example (poor or otherwise).
      • Suggest adding Australia and New Zealand to the infobox. There seems little reason to use "British Empire" to me, and no doubt some drive by will add it sooner or later (suggestion only - I won't oppose on the basis of this).
        • I've expanded the infobox a little per my comments above. Pls review and revert/amend as required. You might consider listing corps and divisions as well though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead
      • This seems awkward to me: "The Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917) was a First World War offensive of the British Second Army, under the command of General Herbert Plumer on the Western Front near the village of Messines in Belgian West Flanders." Suggest rewording something like: "The Battle of Messines (7–14 June 1917) was an offensive conducted by the British Second Army, under the command of General Herbert Plumer, on the Western Front near the village of Messines in Belgian West Flanders during the First World War."
      • This too: "The failure of the Nivelle offensive in April and May 1917 to achieve its more ambitious aims resulted in the demoralisation of French troops and dislocated the Anglo-French strategy for 1917." Consider instead: "The Nivelle offensive of April and May failed to achieve its more ambitious aims and this had resulted in the demoralisation of French troops and the dislocation of Anglo-French strategy for 1917." (or something similar).
      • "to advance to Passchendaele ridge, then capture the Belgian coast up to the Dutch frontier." Should "Passchendaele ridge" be capitalised? Seems like its a proper noun (i.e. a place name) so probably should be.
      • "The British mines, barrages and bombardments benefitted from advances in artillery survey..." how can inanimate objects and battlefield effects benifit from something? I think you might mean somelike: "The effectiveness of the British mines, barrages and bombardments benefitted from advances in artillery survey..."
    • Background
      • Overuse of "1916" in the first para, this could probably be thinned out (minor nitpick/suggestion).
        • Done.
      • Punctuation through the article is a little interesting (to me at least!). I'm an Australian of a certain vintage so my formal training ended at about the age of 10; however, I'm not sure information in parenthesis should really follow a comma. For an example from the article: "recommended to Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig the capture of Messines Ridge, (part of the southern arc of the Ypres Salient) before an operation..." Think it should read: "recommended to Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig the capture of Messines Ridge (part of the southern arc of the Ypres Salient) before an operation..."
      • Capitalisation here I think: "Messines ridge is "well-balanced soil"..."
        • Done.
    • Prelude
      • Terminology here: "Target-finding", or would "target acquisition" be more appropriate?
        • No, that's anachronism.
          • Not sure I quite follow you here, are you saying "target-finding" is anachronistic or "target-acquisition" is? I'm assuming you mean "target-finding" was the correct term back in 1917 so its been used here (which makes sense to me). If thats the case then no worries. For what its worth in my experience "target acquisition" is currently used by those that do it for a living (but thats not really relevant). Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm a bit picky about which modish Americanisms to use, because American English lost its mojo circa 1979. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure about use of italics here: "The 2nd Field Survey Company also...", pretty sure the MOS only uses italics for foreign terms. See WP:ITALICS.
        • Done
      • Terminology again: "air photographs", or "aerial photographs"?
        • Done
      • Repetition here: "to points deep underneath the German front lines, despite German counter-mining", suggest: "to points deep underneath the German front lines, despite counter-mining..."
        • Done
      • Inconsistent presentation of "Wijtschate Salient", in places you use italics and in others you dont.
      • "In May, the 4th Australian, 11th and 24th divisions...", these units should all be wikilinked at first use.
      • Capitalisation here: "Second Army which were preparing to attack Messines ridge...", specifically should be "Messines Ridge" unless I'm mistaken.
        • Started
          • Done.
      • Other instances of italics being used that I'm not sure is MOS compliant include "Bombardment Flight", "Bombardment Groups", "Contact-Patrol Flights". These might work better in quotation marks.
        • Done.
      • I'm unclear what you mean here I'm afraid: "Large numbers of machine-gun posts for an overhead barrage were built...", what do machine-guns have to do with an artillery barrage? Machine-gun fire was often concentrated (in companies or even battalions to provide direct fire support to a brigade or a division in the assault, sort of a "small arms barrage", is this what you mean?) Or do you mean that machine-gun positions were dug in with overhead protection to protect them from German artillery?
        • Done.
      • terminology here: "2,000 bullets" should be "2,000 small arms rounds" (nitpick).
        • Not done, not laconic.
          • "2,000 rounds" would say as much in a few words and would be more technically correct than "bullets" IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • used 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
      • Abbrev has not been introduced here: "The 18-pdr standing barrages..."
        • Done
      • Italics not required here: "barrage line", "Control Post", "Aeroplane Compass Stations", and "Aeroplane Intercepting Station". Again quotation marks might be more appropriate.
        • Done.
      • Incorrect presentation here: "100 Squadron" should be "No. 100 Squadron RAF" AFAIK.
        • No. 100 Squadron RFC, done.
      • Missing word here I think: "Great attention paid to counter-battery fire, the artillery barrage time-table and machine-gun barrages..."
        • Done
      • This could be improved: "It was expected that much of the artillery would need rapidly to switch...", consider: "It was expected that much of the artillery would need to switch rapidly..."
        • Not done, switch is the verb.
          • Indeed it is, but I'm not sure why that would make my suggestion incorrect. Regardless its a minor point so if you prefer your current wording then consider my comment struck. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Punctuation here: "howitzers, (5% of the total)", should be: "howitzers (5% of the total)"
        • Done
      • Inconsistent presentation of "Oosttaverne line" IRT use of italics.
      • Capitalisation again: "The first section was begun six miles behind Messines ridge..."
      • "Crown Prince Rupprecht re-examined the Warneton (third) line...", should just be: "Rupprecht re-examined the Warneton (third) line..." removing rank/honorific at second instance following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME
        • Done
      • "General von Laffert, commander of Gruppe Wijtschate was sacked two days after the battle...", is his full name known? If so it should be used to formally introduce him at first use per WP:SURNAME.
        • Done
      • "headquarters of XIX Corps, led by General von Laffert, holding the ridge", von Armin should be formally introduced with rank and full name at first use per WP:SURNAME.
        • Done
      • Caps here too: "The vulnerability of the north end of Messines ridge where it met Menin ridge"
        • Done
      • What do 1c etc mean here: "third breastwork, (Ic) were to conduct immediate counter-attacks to recapture Ia and Ib." Are these being used to denote successive defensive lines? Not really sure this is helpful (might be if you were describing a map though). Also if you're using them as abbreviations they need to be formally introduced at first use.
        • No, breastworks. Wikilink added and terms described.
      • "British artillery observation machines", suggest use of "aircraft" instead.
        • Done
    • Battle
      • "(From 15 May – 9 June the weather was "fair" or "fine" except for 16, 17 and 29 May, when it was "very bad"). Couple of issues here: 1) it shouldn't start with a capital as it is in the middle of a sentence, 2) "from" indicates a specific point in time yet you use a date range (i.e. non specified point in time). I suggest "between 15 May and 9 June".
        • Done
      • Quite a number of units that should be wikilinked at first instance, including 3rd Australian Division, New Zealand Division, 16th Division.
      • Other wikilinks required such as Lewis gun and Vimy Ridge, among others.
      • "from 2:30–6:55 p.m. for an attack...", → "between 2:30 and 6:55 p.m. for an attack..." as above.
        • Done
      • Is there a missing word here: "The unexpectedly large number troops..."?
        • Done
      • This seems awkward: "The 24th Division brigades captured and six field guns...", consider instead: "The brigades of the 24th Division captured and six field guns..."
        • Done
      • 100 Squadron is wikilinked twice, you should remove one.
      • "Artillery observers watched for German gunfire and made 398 zone calls...", whats a "zone call"?
        • Done, footnoted.
      • I don't understand the chronology of the article, in particular the detonation of the mines on the morning of 7 June is covered in the first paragraph of the "German Fourth Army counter-attacks" but you seem to have already described the events which occurred after that (i.e. the Second Army's assault in the preceeding paragraphs 11 or 12 paragraph. Am I right about this?
        • I've tried to avoid anglocentric bias by writing the German sections from the point of view of German sources. This allows the reader to see it from both sides, despite saddling the article with two descriptions.
          • A worthy goal but often difficult to pull off. I'll have a look at it again and see if it makes more sense with some sleep. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Repetition here: "Both Eingreif divisions were plagued by delays, being new to the area and untrained for Eingreif (counter-attack) operations...", consider instead "Both Eingreif divisions were plagued by delays, being new to the area and untrained for counter-attack operations."
        • Done
    • Aftermath
      • "a reserve battalion was sent to reinforce the 49th Battalion...", 49th Battalion should be wikilinked at first use (you do so a few sentences later).
        • Done. 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
      • "which led General Plumer to order a further advance...", should be "which led Plumer to order a further advance..." per WP:SURNAME as above.
        • Done
      • "The combination of tactics devised on the Somme and at Arras, the use of mines, artillery survey, creeping barrages, tanks, aircraft and small-unit fire-and-movement tactics created surprise and rapid infantry infiltration." Consider instead: "The combination of tactics devised on the Somme and at Arras, the use of mines, artillery survey, creeping barrages, tanks, aircraft and small-unit fire-and-movement tactics created surprise and allowed rapid infiltration by the infantry."
        • Done
      • Unexplained italicisation of "Northern Operation" (and inconsistent also).
        • Done
      • "General von Laffert, commander of Gruppe Wijtschate was sacked two days after the battle...", just "von Laffert" as above.
        • Done
      • "Sir Douglas Haig discussed the possibility of rapid exploitation of a victory...", just "Haig".
        • Done
      • The language here seems strange to me: "unmitigated British tactical and operational success...", why would the British want to mitigate their success? Normally one might try to mitigate a failure. Perhaps this is just my poor command of the English language but do you possibly mean something like "unqualified British tactical and operational success..." instead?
        • Sheldon's word. Can alter.
          • I think it would be an improvement if you did but ultimately its up to you. I'm not going to oppose on the basis of this.Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tried "unmitigated" then thought of (sic) then got rid altogether
      • "Hindenburg called the losses at Messines "very heavy" and...", consider instead: "Hindenburg "described" the losses at Messines "very heavy" and..."
        • Done
      • Inconsistent caps here: "was necessary before the northern operation (the third Battle of Ypres)" (previously you have capitalised Northern Operation).
        • Done
      • Might a link to Battle of Hill 60 (Western Front) be included somewhere in the article?
        • Done.
    • Notes
      • Incorrect capitalisation of "brigade" and "wing" here: "From 30 January 1916, each British army had a Royal Flying Corps Brigade attached, which was divided into Wings..."
        • Done
    • References
      • Bean is missing place of publishing.
      • Inconsistent presentation of isbns - some have hyphens, others don't.
      • Bülow and Kranz seems to be missing some bibliographic information including location, publisher, and an oclc/isbn. This could probably be found using WorldCat.
        • Done
      • Hart and Steel also missing location of publishing.
    • This must seem like a lot of points, and I guess it is. Some may be issues and others may not as I admit I'm not overly familiar with the battle in particular or the period in general. The fighting on the Western Front was of a scale that must make writing about it concisely and with clarity a very difficult task. I commend you on your efforts to date as writing this must have been quite time consuming and it is a definite improvement on what previously existed. With further effort to copy edit it I can see it passing ACR. If you have any questions about my cmts pls feel free to ask / challenge me etc. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies everyone but I'm nursing a poorly cat so I won't be able to do any work on the article for the next couple of days.Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a couple of them for you (I've marked the ones that I've done). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, poorly cat on the mend. I've done and noted a few recommendations, more later.Keith-264 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having another look AnotherC, I might get time for another session later.Keith-264 (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos the structure of the article, I've tried to bear in mind the strictures on anglocentric bias found on lots of Great War pages describing British military operations, hence the semi-autonomous nature of the German sections and far fewer sources which I have to piece together. I can add an explanation or note if it's thought that it interrupts the narrative (the revisionist school tends to ingnore German sources since they put British behaviour into a context other than mud, blood and poetry). As for the narrative, I wondered at first how to add material to Great War pages, which I thought leaned too much on polemical and derivative writing, without causing a permanent punch-up with the revisionist school. While I made my mind up I did the easy bits - describing what was supposed to happen and comparing it with what did from both sides, as far as anglophone sources allow. It occurred that this was the way to avoid historiographical complications, since description is either right or wrong and interpretation is a matter of preference. By adding detail from secondary sources, minutiae are described which I think helps to put armchair generalship in its place. Mind you, my accumulating disdain for Prior &Wilson has received some spirited rejoinders from Paul Turtle.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've read over this again and after completing another copy-edit believe this meets the ACR criteria. Pls review my changes and amend / revert any you disagree with. I still think the infobox could be further developed though. Nonetheless this is an impressive article in my opinion, which does a good job covering a broad topic in detail without being too long. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Messines_(1917)&oldid=531801058"