Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2023 [1].

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign. It is the second half of of what was once one article on the logistical support of the American armies between September and December 1944, but the article was split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]
I remember reviewing this last time it came here. Happy to see it back, and I'm hoping we reach a consensus to promote. Comments will come shortly; this is a long article, so I will go section by section. I do have an active FAC as well if you wish to return the favor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Ardennes Offensive" should be capitalized, yes?
    Uggh. Don't get me started. Per MOS:MILTERMS, Words such as campaign, offensive, siege, action, pocket, etc., are typically not frequently capitalized in sources, so are lowercase in Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I only brought this up because Battle of the Bulge has "Offensive" capitalized. If MOS says it should be lowercase, then it's fine as is in this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsequent advance to the German border stretched the American logistical system to breaking point Suggest "to its breaking point".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Allies should be linked in the first mention, not in the second paragraph.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional port capacity was obtained through the development of the ports of Rouen and Le Havre in September and October, I assume this is meant to mean the first was in September and the second in October? If so, suggest "September and October, respectively".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • This is nitpicking (and the article is very well written, so most of my comments will be nitpicking), but in the first sentence, do those emdashes eliminate the need for a DATECOMMA?
    The military date format eliminates it. Parenthetical commas are only required with the mdy date format. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This stretched the logistical system to breaking point. Same comment as I made regarding the lead section.
    Changed too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 25 August and 12 September, the Allied armies advanced from the D plus 90 phase line, the position the Operation Overlord plan expected to be reached 90 days after D-Day, to the D plus 350 one I didn't understand this on first reading, due to "D plus 350 one". Wasn't sure if this meant D plus 351, or was a typo. Suggest instead saying "D plus 350 line" or something similar to eliminate confusion.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather, the problem was the inability to deliver fuel and supplies. Suggest "deliver fuel and supplies to the front lines" or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there was a shortage of suitable vehicles can you name any examples here (I found 6-ton 6×6 truck in a navbox, for instance) of suitable long-haul vehicles that were in short supply? You name the deuce and a half truck later, which is helpful, and I think examples of what wasn't available would be similarly helpful.
    See American logistics in the Northern France campaign#Motor transport for the details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If six to eight weeks could be gained, then bad weather would set in, further restricting the Allies' mobility, air operations and logistical support. This is referring to the onset of winter, right? Suggest making that more explicit.
    Autumn rains and storms. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ports

More to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

  • Although the Red Ball Express was the first and most famous express highway delivery route, it was by no means the only one. The first of these was the Red Lion, which ran from 16 September to 12 October, and hauled 18,000 long tons (18,000 t) of supplies from Bayeux to Brussels. You say the Red Ball Express was first here, but immediately contradict that in the following sentence.
    Tightened the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railways

Air

Inland waterways

Outcome

Overall, well written article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "From September onwards, an increasing volume of supplies came directly from the United States in Liberty ships that were stowed to make optimal use of cargo space." You have in this sentence "an increasing volume of supplies", that takes a singular verb, and "Liberty ships", that takes a plural noun. You say "were stowed", so I'm forced to assume the Liberty ships were stowed, not the volume of supplies. Yet that seems odd.
    Trying to say too much in the one sentence. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quayside". "Dockside" seems more American. Not also that this link goes to a waterfront area in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
    Changed to "dockside" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ending of the lede doesn't sound like an ending, but seems to leave off.
    Added another paragraph
  • "albeit on reduced scales" This is a bit unclear whether the units were pared down or their rations and supplies were.
    Added "of rations and supplies". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The German strategy was to conduct a fighting withdrawal to the Siegfried Line (which they called the Westwall) while holding and demolishing the ports and harbors. These would be held as long as possible." Probably these could be combined into one sentence (beginning after the parenthetical) " ... while holding the ports and harbors for as long as possible, and demolishing them".
    That will work. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You use this phrase multiple times.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as they were being lured away to work on the higher-priority amphibious cargo ships and Boeing B-29 Superfortress programs." Lured? By what incentive? It makes it sound like they were choosing to work on the higher-priority projects, something which may be beyond what ordinary workers would be expected to do. Were there greater incentives such a spay or benefits for the higher priority projects.
    Yes, they were offered better pay and conditions. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Naval harbormaster would take the Army's preferences ... office of the Naval Harbor Master" which?
    Gone with "harbor master"; this seems to be the official military spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "439,660 long tons (446,720 t) of Army cargo discharged at Cherbourg by 13 September, just 38.4 percent was unloaded at quayside berths or over LST ramps; the rest was unloaded by DUKWs and lighters.[60]" This sentence should probably start with "Of".
    Um, it does? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bogged vehicles" To me, as an American, "bogged-down" seems more natural.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he devolved the necessary authority" Hm. Similar issue. Maybe "devolved" could be "delegated"?
    I think "devolved" is more correct, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pontons" Again, EngVar (multiple usages). I usually hear pontoons, i.e., the pontoon bridges they have near Seattle. Unless military usage is different.
    Yes. Military usage is different here. For some reason the US military uses "ponton". In Australia we would say "pontoon". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phoenix breakwaters salvaged from the Mulberry harbour" You linked the mulberry, though it was a while ago. And should it be "harbor"?
    Unlinked and changed to "harbor" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "noted that the entrances Antwerp and Rotterdam could be blocked and mined" Missing word. Also "but 85,000 long tons (86,000 t) accumulated first two weeks of the port's operation."
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but only 1,358 2-8-0s and 362 0-6-0s were on hand by the end of June.[113]" 1944?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know logistics isn't everyone's cup of tea, and reviews are greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder, making a start... JennyOz (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, finally got to the end...

lede

Background

Shipping

Ports

Highways

Railways

Outcome

Captions

Ship prefixes -

Hawkeye, let me know if you need clarification on any of my comments, JennyOz (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New consistency - Liège v Liege and Rhone v Rhône
I just made 2 minor tweaks to article. Everything else seems fine so trusting you'll tweak those inconsistencies, I'm ready to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where in Ruppenthal 1959, pp. 49–50. does it support "noted on 5 September that ..."? (Footnote 11 suggests 3 September.)
    Typo. Should be 3 September. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in Pogue 1954, pp. 366–367 does it support either part of "Port operations were interrupted by the German Ardennes offensive, which commenced on 16 December 1944"?
    That is only there to support the date of the German Ardennes offensive. The rest is supported by the next footnote, Bykovsky and Larson p. 323 "Normal port operations at Antwerp were interrupted by the German counteroffensive of mid-December 1944. Because outlying depots and dumps, particularly those in the Liege area, were threatened, large quantities of supplies again accumulated in the port." Placed a duplicate of that footnote after the first comma, so Pogue is only supporting the middle clause. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off for a few days. I will re-check everything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I have done a pass through the article re-checking all the references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further random sampling has thrown up no issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the unlikely event that Nikkimaria feels there isn't, can I flag up that it is extremely unlikely that the closing coordinator will consider "Travail personnel avec [Google Maps]" to be a high quality source, or even a reliable one. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google maps as a reliable source was discussed as a source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388#Google Maps. On Commons WP:OR and WP:MAPCITE do not apply. I am not using the map as a source myself. I could use File:Cherbourg - demolitions and underwater obstacles-1.jpg and File:Cherbourg - demolitions and underwater obstacles-2.jpg instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source of these images (Crist) could be used for WP:V on Wikipedia, but that policy does not apply on Commons either. Instead Commons has an essay Commons:Verifiability which says "Commons does not require reliable sources or any independent evidence that an image or other file contains what it purports to contain." There is another essay, Commons:Evidence-based mapping, which says: "English Wikipedia has a well-earned reputation for valuing accuracy and verifiability in its texts. It also uses media files from Wikimedia Commons, which, however, has different rules than English Wikipedia. Commons values free artistic expression above all else, including accuracy and verifiability, as long as nobody's copyright is violated. Therefore, you can still 'get away with' a lot of unsourced, inaccurate and misleading visual information on Commons, especially in mapping."
This essay contains a section on English Wikipedia policies and conventions which summaries the results of two long discussions about this matter in May and July 2021, and the policies and guidelines that apply here on Wikipedia.
With great reluctance I have switched to the alternative multiple map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Support. An interesting piece. I made a few minor tweaks on my readthrough – feel free to delete anything inappropriate. Just two comments, neither of which will affect my support:

  • "Over 15,000 vehicles were deadlined": I'm not sure what "deadlined" means – as the term appears a few times, is there a way to translate?
    Deadlined: "A military term used to describe the operational condition of a piece of equipment. It means the equipment in question is NMC [not military capable] or is broken down. Equipment can be deadlined for safety reasons such as fuel leaks, inop headlights, Missing seatbelts, etc." Urban dictionary Added a link to the wiktionary definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/American_transportation_in_the_Siegfried_Line_campaign/archive2&oldid=1131922341"