Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/First Battle of Dernancourt

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 by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

First Battle of Dernancourt

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Featured article candidates/First Battle of Dernancourt/archive1

This article is my first go at an "Australian" battle of WWI after my recent forays into South Australian WWI bios, taking a bit of break from Yugoslavia in WWII. A suburb in my home city, Adelaide, is named after this battle (and the subsequent Second Battle of Dernancourt, which I'm currently working on in user space as it is more complex). The Germans attacked pretty much off the line of march without adequate artillery preparation during the second week of their Spring Offensive, and did not fare well against the fresh Australian troops and their tired, depleted but resolute British comrades. It recently went through GAN, and I'm keen to see where improvements might be made, especially as it will also impact on the Second Dernancourt article. I'm particularly interested in whether the structure works and whether the "left to right" explanation of the battle works. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of basic points- things that struck me in the immediate. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the lead should really be "Two or three paragraphs" for an article this size. Also, about the images; considering the IB is on the right-hand side, five out of the six pics are also on the right, with only one on the left. Do you think it would benefit visually from being evened out- or were you deliberately trying to avoid the 'classic' L/R/L/R/L/R down the page? Nice article though particularly as ony a couple of years ago it started off as a redirect :) — fortunavelut luna 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Expanded lead to two paras, and reset the images. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This article is the subject of my favourite diorama at the Australian War Memorial, which I've taken the liberty of adding a photo of to the infobox - please remove/move if you see fit, of course. I have the following comments and suggestions:

I'd suggest tweaking the first sentence to specify who the battle was fought between

Done

What condition was the 50th Reserve Division in at the time of the battle? As I understand it, the German units took pretty heavy casualties and supplies were often a problem

According to Bean, its morale was still high on 5 April, so I think it is fair to assume it was the same on 28 March, added a bit.

"but the orders did not reach the divisions in time" - can you say why not? (presumably due to a reliance on couriers as telephones weren't available)

Bean doesn't say.

"Although the Official History is silent on who was responsible for this debacle, in his notebooks, Bean blamed Imlay" - the series and Bean should be linked, and it would be helpful to quickly note here who Bean was

Good point, not sure how I missed that...

"According to Deayton, the defensive deficiencies of the forward positions along the railway line were obvious" - this sticks out by itself at the moment, at the end of a para noting the success of the defence. Can it be expanded upon and/or moved?

G'day Nick, I've expanded the description of the ground under "Allied dispositions" to explain why it was such a problem. Let me know if you think more needs doing? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can anything be said about how this battle has been remembered? The fact that it was selected as the subject for one of the AWM's original dioramas, which remains on display along with some items from the battle in the new WW1 galleries, suggests it's regarded as being one of the AIF's more memorable engagements. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nick, I strongly suspect from the AWM art entry which includes a photo of the diorama, that it is of Second Dernancourt, rather than this battle a week earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed ;) I was a bit confused when this article didn't describe vast numbers of Germans rushing at plucky Australian Lewis Gunners Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed - great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling down the McDougall image. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: reviewed this one for GA and am happy with the changes since. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments:~~

"The First Battle of Dernancourt was fought on 28 March 1918 near Dernancourt, in the Somme department of what is now Hauts-de-France in northern France, during World War I, between an Allied defending force and the German Army, resulting in a complete defeat of the German assault."

urg! my eyes, they bleed! How about:

The First Battle of Dernancourt was a battle during World War I fought on 28 March 1918 near Dernancourt, in the Somme department of what is now Hauts-de-France in northern France. The battle whatever troops pf an Allied defending force including fresh Australian units against the German Army, resulting in a complete defeat of the German assault.

And put a para break there too.

Done

"and with the British 35th Division" - comma

Done

"and Buire-sur-l'Ancre. The main German" - para break

Done

"nowhere were the Germans able to break" - "the Germans failed to break through through the British/Australian defences."

Done

"apparent to the Allies that a large German offensive was pending on the Western Front" - do we really need to say Western Front at this point?

Done

"Walter Norris Congreve. The commander" - para break

Done

"remnants of the 9th (Scottish) Division which" - where are they on the map? Had they left already?

They had been relieved by that point, per first sentence of this section.

"A mushroom-shaped feature" - I'm not sure what "mushroom-shaped" would refer to. The top is larger that the bottom? It has that shape as seen from the top on a map? The map doesn't seem to show this, although I can see the change in direction of the railway you mention.

This is how Bean describes it, I assume that he means a mushroom with the umbrella bit being where the two Australian battalions are, and the stem where the "Aust" in 12 Aust Bde is.

"the railway line since, if it was not garrisoned" - the railway line; if it was...

Done

"Germans back across the flats into some buildings, and then out of there" - out of where, the buildings? If so, did they remain in the buildings?

reworded

"Moving in artillery formation," - what is this? do you mean a formation to prevent loses from arty? if so, is there another term or link possible?

Done added a note

"losing another 240. Despite the withdrawal" - para break.

Done

The map shows a unit called the "19 NF", but I don't see any description of this in the text. It seems to have been the target of the 230RIR, which in the text is the 2nd Tyneside. Is the 19th the 2nd?

Yes. They are referred to as just the 19th Northumberland Fusiliers by Bean, but I've used the full title when I've introduced them, then a shortened version later.

At the end, parts of the 230 are seen in Albert, which is a long way off. Is this referring to Dernancourt or some other location?

No, they were in Albert, which was on the far northern flank of the 48th Battalion. You can see it in the maps.

That's it for now! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maury! Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, two more items:

"with the Australians losing around 137 killed or wounded." - the infobox puts all allied casualties at 137, but the body definitely describes British losses as well.
19 NF vs. 2nd Tyneside - add a note in the caption of the first map to this effect.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Maury. The British casualties are not provided in any sources I've seen, so I've split it into Australians and British in the infobox. Does that work for you? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We work with what we have! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.