Talk:Battle of Broodseinde

Possible improvements
This is article is very close to B class in my opinion, however, I have a couple of suggestions:


 * Referencing: generally very good, however, there are a couple of paragraphs without cites. The rule for the military history project is that for a B class rating every paragraph requires at least one citation, more if multiple assertions are made;
 * WP:MOS issues:
 * the citations need to go outside, or after punctuation.✅
 * in this case I believe the spelling should be British English, not American English, but I'm not tied to it. ✅
 * dashes: use endashs and emdashes where appropriate;✅
 * images: try to avoid stacking images, this can be resolved by putting some of them on the left;✅
 * headings: don't use 'The' in the title for headings, don't ask me why, the Manual of Style just doesn't like it✅
 * citations: duplicate references (i.e. same source and page number) can be consolidated using WP:NAMEDREFS✅
 * date format: there is a mixture of the American (month, day) and British (day month) system. Need to be consistent. I believe, as above with spelling, that as the beligerents involved are mainly British and Commonwealth nations that it should follow the British system, however, once again I'm not tied to it so long as there is consistency either way.✅
 * date linking: as per WP:MOSNUM we don't wikilink dates anymore.✅

That is all I have at the moment. Looking good so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've gone through and made these tweaks, also did a bit of formating and copyediting. There are still a couple of citations missing (I have put tags where I feel they are required). If these can be added in, I feel that the article would be a B class. If you would like to take the article higher, please consider submitting it for a peer review. This can be done by adding it to the list at WP:MHPR. Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting views of the genesis of Broodseinde.
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3037/

http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/21/

Paragraph moved from text
Had the artillery been closer, it would have been possible for the advance to have continued. However, as some of the artillery was already at its extreme range, the plan would have had to have been modified to address this possibility prior to the attack. As it was, there was discussion between Generals Godley (II Anzac Corps commander), Charteris (Head of Intelligence at BEF HQ), Plumer (Second Army commander) and Birdwood (I Anzac Corp commander) as to the possibility of further attacks on 4 October (with Godley and Charteris wanting to go on but Birdwood and Plumer arguing against). By mid-afternoon it was decided that no further attacks would take place.

Exposition from OH used to add detail.Keith-264 (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This removed from Poelcappelle as occurred on 4 Oct "despite the 11th Division brigade having eight tanks of D Battalion Tank Corps".Keith-264 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC) The attack by the X Corps achieved most of its objectives (advancing 800 yd), although unsubdued German artillery fire from behind the Ghevulelt Plateau caused large numbers of casualties (8,000 casualties in the three attacking divisions). IX Corps in the south experienced the same problems as the X Corps and made little headway against the German defence.Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision
I have revised the text and rearranged certain parts to conform to the model on other pages. Some additions have been made and others are due. If anyone wants to review the page and make suggestions, please do. Regards, Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Items moved from main page
On 12 October Rupprecht wrote, "Witterungsumschlag. Erfreulicherweise Regen, unser wirksamter Bundesgenosse." ("Break in the weather. Welcome rain, our strongest ally".) On 18 October General von Kuhl proposed a bigger withdrawal. Sixt von Armin the German Fourth Army commander and Lossberg his Chief of Staff, felt that they had no alternative but to hang on 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
The revised version has been done in time for the anniversary, save for a copyedit. Suggestions etc requested as usual.Keith-264 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Had a read through and tidied a few typos and awkward sentences but a fresh pair of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Broodseinde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618130838/http://www.cwgc.org/ypres/content.asp?menuid=36&submenuid=38&id=25&menuname=Broodseinde&menu=subsub to http://www.cwgc.org/ypres/content.asp?menuid=36&submenuid=38&id=25&menuname=Broodseinde&menu=subsub

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Broodseinde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719173700/http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm to http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net/site/warpath/battles_ff/1917.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

German translation problems
I encountered difficulties with the name (and translation) of "Unternehmen Hohensturm" (translated as "High Storm"). I cannot find German references to this operation, but since there is no term "Hohen Sturm" in German, I suspect in one of the English sources, the Umlauts have been omitted (as is still so often the case). The word "Höhensturm" does exist in German, but then that would not mean "High Storm" but "Height Storm", which would make perfect sense, since the counter-offensive would likely aim to regain the higher ground. 85.178.69.100 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)kookee
 * I'm sure you are right because the source has Unternehmen Hohensturm which the online translator gave as "Operation Storm the Heights" and two variations. I guessed at Height Storm from the context but am happy to be contradicted by someone who knows what he's doing. ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)