Talk:German invasion of Belgium (1940)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

This article looks pretty strong to me. Well-sourced, well-written and seemingly quite comprehensive. My comments are mainly minor grammatical issues or otherwise questions, which I'm sure can be addressed quickly. I've also made some minor copy editing changes myself, which can be seen in the history. Offline sources are accepted in good faith. Please address each comment line-by-line and I'll strike them as we go... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead
 * "Fall Gelb" redirects back to "Battle of France", which is already wikilinked. Do we need the wikilink for Fall Gelb as well?
 * Normally I would be against wikilinking the something that leads to the same article. However, in this case I feel liek we have to as many people may not know that Fall Gelb was the German codename for the invasion of France. By keeping this linked, It allows the reader to know that they are the same thing without haveing to go into unnessisary detail.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "throughout 10–12 May" This could just be personal preference talking, but could you maybe try different wording here?
 * How about throughout 10 May to 12 May?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if perhaps the first sections (from "Belgium's strained alliances" to "German operational plans") should be grouped as subsections under one larger all-encompassing section? (Maybe "Pre-battle" or something like that?)
 * I guess. I'll go and change that now.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Belgian place in Allied strategy How about ading "while" inbetween French and the British?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "There was little inclination to oppose the French, the British strategy for military action came in the form of strategic bombing of the Ruhr industry." This sentence doesn't appear to be entirely complete?
 * I did;nt add while in the sentence but I think that it's fixed up now.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Belgian military strategy
 * "...that they would defend their frontiers accordingly against aggression of any sought." This is probably a stupid question on my part, but should it be "of any sort"?
 * Yes it should. I'll go change that.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Belgians had secured themselves from immediate attack, gained time to prepare a defence, and make covert arrangements with the Allies upon the outbreak of war." This sentence currently serves as a stand-alone paragraph, but I'm not sure why. And it lacks an inline citation, which strikes me as odd, especially for such a general and sweeping statement. Can you look at this and determine if it should be merged to another paragraph or perhaps cut altogether. And, if it's kept, add an inline citation?
 * Yes. I'll take a look and get back to you ASAP. IMHO, it should be droped from the article.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "He was concerned that the Belgians would be driven out of their defences and would retreat to Antwerp, as in 1914." Can you add a little context as to when exactly this happened in 1914? (For example, during which battle, if there was a specific one?)
 * There was no specific battle. Any novice would know that 1914 was refering to the German invasion of France! I would link it to an article if there was one in existance. sorry.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Belgian plans for defensive operations
 * "commanded by General the Lord Gort" This is probably my unfamiliarity with the subject talking, but is this really how this should be written?
 * I'm not sure. Probably not. How about "commanded by General Lord Gort"?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "for the last 100 km of front" Can you use Template:Convert for the 100 km (to miles)? And for any other instances where units of measurement are used?
 * Oops! Sorry about that. I'll be sure to put the template(s) in. I'll get back to you when I'm done.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've converted all of them.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

German operational plans
 * "a 50 kg" This, too, should be converted.
 * Same as above.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All done.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  02:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

10-11 May: The border battles "A full state alarm was given at 01:30 am." Am I wrong, or is this an unnecessary combination of military time and non-military time? Shouldn't it be either 01:30 or 1:30 am?
 * No, it's right. There's no need to put the 0 infront of the 1.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Despite overwhelming numerical superiority of 1,375 aircraft, 957 serviceable, the counter-air campaign in Belgium had limited success overall, despite thorough photographic reconnaissance, and although it had a tremendous impact on the AeMI, which had only 179 aircraft on 10 May." This sentence is sort of choppy. Right now it reads like, "Despite this, that happened, despite this, and although this..."
 * I can move the other despite this, and although this.. infront of the "the counter-air campaign in Belgium had limited success overall".-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've broken it up inot two sentences. It may still sound a bit odd but trust me. It's the best wording that can be done. To be honest, the way that it's worded is correct. It just sounds wierd because It's not a common way of saying things.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "From the German perspective the operation was a failure, it had hindered rather than helped the advance." Isn't this repeating information that is already included shortly beforehand with the sentence "However, from the German perspective the operation hindered rather than helped Heinz Guderian's Panzer Corps"?
 * Yes it is. If you can point it out to me, I'll remove it :)-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The delay that the Belgian Ardennes Light Infantry, considered to be elite formations, could have inflicted upon the advancing German armour "is proved by the fight for Bodange where the 1st Panzer Division was held up for a total of eight hours."" There needs to be a direct attribution in the sentence for the quote portion used, as per WP:QUOTE.
 * Sorry for the stupid question but What?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the quoatation. Thought that it would be better than the alterantive.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...sought to put the matter (of cooperation) right with King Leopold." Is there any reason "(of cooperation)" has to be in paraentheses?
 * I'll remove the paraentheses.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the paraentheses.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "about 20 km east of Breda" Convert?
 * Dito to the above.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

12-14 May: The battles of the centarl Belgian plain
 * "while the Belgian units already on the Dyle line "worked feverishly"" If you're going to use a quote fragment here, you need to directly attribute in the prose who said it.
 * Instead, how about I replace it to say "worked tirelessly?"-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced it with "worked tirelessly".-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "and "particularly distinguished themselves" at the Battle of Tirlemont" Same as above.
 * Wait, would'nt the reader know who the quote is from based off of the citation further on?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded and done.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Belgians had reason to confident." To be confident? And I'd actually suggest perhaps dropping this sentence altogether, as it strikes me as a bit unencyclopedic...
 * On my way...-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...to Namur in the south, some 20–30 km." Convert?
 * Same as above.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The result of the first day's battle was:" This sentence is followed by a paragraph-long block quote. Where is this text coming from? Can you clarify that in the sentence that introduces it?
 * I'll see what I can do.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't have the book with me. I don't really know where the quote came from.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Prioux cannot be blamed for the poor tactical deployment, he had protested vehemently against the deployment of his forces." This strike me as POV...
 * Should I remove the sentence?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Germans lost 60 men killed and another 80 wounded." Could you reword "lost 60 men killed"?
 * How about "The Germans had 60 men killed and another 80 wounded."?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

15–21 May: Counterattacks and retreat to the coast
 * "and was now free to "dash" to the English Channel." Unless you feel it's worth the trouble of directing attributing who said "dash", I'd suggest you either choose a new word or drop the quotation marks.
 * I'll drop the quotation marks.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded to say "sprint".-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...was ordered/forced to retire..." Is the use of the word "ordered/forced" like that really necessary?
 * I guess. do you want me to pick one or the other?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "...some 10–15 km inside the French border." Convert?
 * Same as above.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Last defensive battles
 * "The Luftwaffe had air superiority and made life difficult in logistical terms." "Made life difficult" strikes me as unencyclopedic wording.
 * How about "the everyday living conditions of the Belgians difficult"?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded to say "everyday life troubling".-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Belgian surrender
 * "which numbered some 3 million human beings" 3 million people?
 * I'll change that.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to say people.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you write a more detailed caption for the photo in this section than "Negotiating the Belgian capitulation"? Can you identify who are in the picture, for example?
 * I'll see if I can. I have a feeling that the identity of those two people are unknown though.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No other info is available. We just know that person 1 and person 2 were negotiating. Sorry.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "This was due to the "spirited defence"..." Direct attribution for the quote fragment...
 * What? Should I remove the quote?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded it to say "strong-willed defence"-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

German casualties
 * "The casualty reports include total losses at this point in the western campaign. The figures for the Battle of Belgium, 10–28 May 1940, cannot be known with exact certainty." Should this have an inline citation?
 * If the next citation does not address this assertment then yes. If so then I'll add one.-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * actually. I can't find a source for this. I know that it's true as the Germans only kept records for the entire invasion, not just Belgium but I can;t verify it. Should I remove the sentence then?-- Coldplay Expért <sup style="color:#DC143C;">Let's talk  02:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll place this article on hold for now until the comments above are addressed. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied now that this passes the GA criteria. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Checklist

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

<hr width=50%>
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Offline source accepted in good faith.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well done! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Well done! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done! That's a pass! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)