Talk:Battle of Albert (1916)

Table
Added table on gas warfare, then shifted things about to fit, then decided to harmonise the layout with other pages and shift parts of the main page, which are in too much detail there to here.Keith-264 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Added rainfall data for the bombardment and first day.Keith-264 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved tables around, not sure if the gas table is too elaborate. May reduce it to number of cylinders per army front per day. Opinions?Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Expansion and rewrite
The page has been rewritten and could do with a fresh pair of eyes to copy edit it before submission for a B class review.Keith-264 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Keith - great work on this so far (as usual the Western Front seems a fairly lonely place on wiki - only you a few others working in this area)! A couple of suggestions to take this fwd to GA:
 * level of coverage and referencing looks more than sufficient for GA (to me as a non-expert);
 * consider splitting the lead into 3 or 4 paras (per WP:LEAD);
 * Can do.
 * Done
 * consider wikilinking notable terms and units in the lead (it looks fairly bare ATM);
 * To do
 * Done
 * Joffre and Haig only mentioned by last name in the lead, should be formally introduced with their full name and rank and wikilinked (per WP:SURNAME);
 * Done
 * suggest more wikilinks throughout the article;
 * As above
 * a copyedit would probably be profitable, as I found a few pair commas missing, some capitalization I was unsure of (western front in lower case, Intelligence with a capital etc), a few words which might work better substituted - for instance "a beginning was made" → consider "a start was made", " to be better and quicker informed" → consider " to be better and more quickly informed" ;
 * I think the use of the template is probably more effective if confined to being immediately after a heading, i.e. not in between paragraphs, as it breaks up the narrative. Consider in the "strategic developments" section combining the main links into a single template at the top. (BTW I couldn't find anything in the template documents or MOS to say how you have done it is wrong so it probably is personal choice).
 * Done
 * The use of dates at the start of a paragraph is probably effective in provide chronological context, but I've not come across it used before in such articles. I would suggest not using it as I found it a little disconcerting (almost dairy like), and instead relying on the sequencing of your paragraphs and in-text dates to indicate chronology, but again I don't see any policy which says you shouldn't. A more standard alternative would be to use such dates as 3rd or even 4th level headings. Anyway just a suggestion.
 * It's experimental as I found that you can use a semi-colon to embolden; I've taken them out and put them back in twice already.;O)
 * Done. The precaution of adding citations to suit smaller paragraphs turned out to be a wise one.
 * There are some very long paragraphs which you should consider splitting.
 * Can do, again this is more of an experiment with layout.
 * Done
 * The casualties section seems quite small, is there anything further that could be added? For instance the break up b/n killed and wounded etc. The effect of these losses on subsequent operations etc?
 * Can do, I put divisional details in the main text but can shift them.
 * Done
 * The Battle of Bazentin Ridge should not be in bold in the "Subsequent operations" section, under MOS:BOLD I think this is reserved for article titles only.
 * Cut 'n' pasted from the article, done.
 * consider using the and  templates in the "further reading" section to present in the same manner as the "references" section. Also I would consider reducing the size of the "further reading" section as it seems a little long.
 * Done. Can do, I put redundant items from the bibliography there and again I'm not committed to them.
 * Done
 * Hope these cmts are useful, happy to look over again later if you like. Anotherclown (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Maps are a bit of a problem but I'll see if I can find a few more.Keith-264 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Mametz Wood & Contalmaison
Split the section as dividing the paragraphs made the section unwieldy.Keith-264 (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Pls explain why you think the wording could minimise British losses.Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "The loss of about 60,000 British casualties on 1 July, was not repeated but in the fighting from 2–13 July the British lost another 25,000 men. This was a change in the rate of loss from about 60,000 to 2,083 per day; German casualties from 1–10 July were 40,187. (compared with British casualties of about 85,000 from 1-13 July.)"

"But" is argumentative and conclusive not descriptive so needs a citation to a RS. Reason for comparison needs explaining and citing for relevance to this section of the article. Keith-264 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My problem the wording I found was that splitting the casualties of the first day from the casualties on subsequent days diverts the readers' attention from the total number of deaths. British deaths were far in excess of the French losses and about double the losses of the Germans. Of course it is important to note that the horrific losses of the first day were not repeated in subsequent days, but the total number of casualties was still disproportionately high and this is important to note. Michael Glass (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The figures aren't in dispute only the presentation? It seems a little OR to treat the casualties as information to make a point unless this is related to a citation from a RS. Do you know of anyone who has had their attention influenced? German casualties on the first day are hard to define but Whitehead thinks they're about 12,000 to 14,000, most on the French front, which is about 25% of the British loss. For comparison, on 22 August 1914, the French day equivalent to the British first day, the French had 27,000 men killed; 19,000 British deaths on 1 July might look like they got off lightly (but I can't link that point to a RS). Keith-264 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the wording I find problematic is the phrase, was not repeated in The loss of about 60,000 British casualties on 1 July, was not repeated In fact, the losses were cumulative. 60,000 were lost on 1 July and a further 25,000 were lost from 2-13 July. That was not repeated phrase does tend to minimise the loss of 25,000 men in 12 days. Michael Glass (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree but think that adding more words will tend to add melodrama too, which is equally biased. How about "The loss of about 60,000 British casualties in one day was never repeated but from 2–13 July the British had approximately 25,000 more casualties."? regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agreed. This wording is better, and it makes clear the point I was trying to make. Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you might find this interesting. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. It seems there is a lot of work to be done on casualties, especially on the German side. (I changed "approximately" to "about." I think the shorter word is preferable unless there is a good reason to use the longer one.} Best wishes, Michael Glass (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite agree about says it all, thanks. The research suggests that the German total is going to be increased but by a housekeeping figure, not one that will overturn the big difference between German and British losses. Someone pointed out a few years ago that the British attacked the most fortified part of the front, to which reinforcements from the south bank had been transferred, giving the French the advantage of an easier job as well as having better training, more experience and superior artillery. Considering that the new model, continental-sized army became a dynamic equilibrium between experience and destruction as soon as it was used, the speed with which the British adapted seems to me to be the surprising thing. Keith-264 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thousands of yards
The references to thousands of yards (and metres) are not helpful to the average reader. I have converted the metres to kilometres (and a few kg to tonnes). Michael Glass (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As references to thousands of yards are still primary I think it would be more helpful to the average reader to make the metric measures primary in the article. Are there any comments or concerns about this proposal? Michael Glass (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Out of the question; I don't know what the fuss was in the first place. Keith-264 (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can convert yards to miles if it bothers you; what average reader do you have in mind? Keith-264 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the average reader in Australia, New Zealand, the Irish Republic, South Africa and Canada would find the change helpful. Then there are English-speaking readers in Commonwealth countries including India, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Malaysia, Singapore and other countries who also use the metric system as a matter of course. Then there's the small matter of what MOSNUM recommends for "all other articles". However, a conversion of thousands of yards to miles would be helpful for the average reader in the UK and the US, so I wouldn't stand in the way of that proposal.Michael Glass (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Name seven ;O).... It will be done. regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * yd|mi|km didn't work but yd|mi km| did. Keith-264 (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Tables
Good morning, just spotted your edits; is there a WP you can point me at pls? I have no idea about designing tables and adapted these from an article by trial and error. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * hi there. Well most of it, like you, as come from trial-and-error edits, but we do have Help:Table which might be of interest?  Having  crafted a number of FLs which sometimes feature some  intricate coding, I'm  quite familiar with most aspects, so feel free to hit me up if you have anything specific in mind.  All the best, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again, does

here

See also
 * Battle of the Somme: order of battle
 * Battle of the Somme: order of battle

make room for the portal rather than overrunning the next header? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It happens quite a lot, images or icons squashing the references, so that just clears the bottom section before the refs to allow reflist to do its thing. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

captured or not captured
First it is said :Barleux and Biaches were captured on 4 July, by Foreign Legion troops of the Moroccan Division. But shortly afterwards: A preliminary attack on Barleux and Biaches was postponed from 8 to 9 July, [..] and failed to capture Barleux, though the French broke through the German second position to capture Biaches. When Barleux and Biaches were already captured on 4 July how could the French failed capture Barleux on 9 July ???? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, I put a note in the edit screen to remind me and I'll check both sources in the morning. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I've sorted it out. It looks as though I abbreviated Philpott's narrative too much and got the dates wrong. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem at all... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)