Talk:Grand Quartier Général (1914–1919)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. Sorry for delay in getting back to you I have been too busy this week to check WP.  I will read through your points and try to answer them all today.  Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The picture of Joffre isn't properly licensed. Shouldn't be too hard to find another on Commons.
 * I switched to a more verifiably PD one - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No DABs
 * External links are good.


 * What exactly do you mean by "information"? Intelligence or public affairs/propaganda? It's also not clear who handled intelligence after Nivelle's reorganization.
 * Sorry, that is down to my translation. Checking my French dictionary I believe it to mean news/public affairs (the original French is "information" if Lagarde had meant military intelligence I think he would have used "[bureau de] renseignement".  The source also states the information section initially had responsibility for post, political affairs and security.  Though it didn't receive responsibility for relations with the civil authorities and cryptography until it formed part of the new Bureau for Special Services in 1917.  I have tried to clarify this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't supported by the comment that the 2nd Bureau's estimations of German casualties were nonsense. I wonder if the formal name was a really a cover name for its primary responsibility of intel as the US Army's staff system was modelled on the french and the S-2 handles intel. This really needs to be clarified as it's a fundamental point and I can't pass it as complete until it's resolved. Maybe you can find a reference to later, hopefully more accurate, estimates of German casualties. This function needs to be covered throughout the war (if it was transferred to some other department, note that). And be sure to amend the chart as necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right. I searched about a bit and found a couple of good sources with some more info.  Apparently the 2nd Bureau initially had responsibility for intel but lost much of this to a short-lived 5th bureau before they were briefly re-united and then folded into the Bureau for Special Services (LaGarde doesn't mention this in his history).  The fractured nature of the intel system led to problems for the French at Verdun and rivalry between the 5th Bureau and 2nd Bureau officers continued even after they were re-united.  I have tried to expand on this in the article and have updated the table at the bottom - Dumelow (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added one tag for missing a missing cite.
 * Cited - Dumelow (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm confused when you say that the two aides-majors each ran two of the bureaus, but then go on to name bureau heads for the 3rd and 4th Bureaus. Who ran the 1st and 2nd Bureaus? And what was the relationship between the aides-majors and the bureau chiefs?
 * I believe that the aides-majors played a directing role over two of the bureaus each with a lower ranking officer actually undertaking the day to day running of each bureau. I have tried to clarify this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why did Joffre find it impossible to relieve GQG officers?
 * Apparently no one really knows but I have expanded a little with some statements attributed to historian Alistair Horne - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Add "the" before "local" in this: reinforcements from local commander General Frédéric-Georges Herr
 * Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * French names for the North-East Army and the North Army should be added for consistency.
 * Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Why were the two armies only briefly subject to GQG authority?
 * It was French policy that the key armies in the field be independent commands. They lay under the overarching direction of the GQG (as did all French troops in the military zone) but retained day-to-day control under their own officers.  Joffre's expansion brought them directly into the GQG system for the first time.  Lyautey's reforms (which were prompted by Gallieni's concern over the power concentrated in GQG) simply restored the status quo of 1914 by restoring some of the control to the army commanders.  I have made some edits to try to clarify this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This should be clarified in the lede as my impression was that GQG controlled the field armies from the beginning. You've improved it in the main body, but be precise about GQG's remit in the lede as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tried to clarify this in the lead. I struggled a bit to word it right so you may wish to check it over.  Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Make sure that all book cites have place of publication.
 * Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Missing OCLC # for King and Becke.
 * Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I really liked the table, helped a great deal in tracking who was responsible for what when.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A couple of minor points:
 * Don't capitalize titles or ranks unless you're talking about specific people. limogered 54 Generals
 * Done, I always seem to slip a few of those in despite checking! - Dumelow (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Use a long, m-dash without spaces here: French set-backs in 1915 forced Joffre to reorganise GQG - on 11 December he replaced Belin with General Noël de Castelnau - and expand its remit--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The complexities of wp:dash are somewhat beyond me I'm afraid (spaced, unspaced, hyphen, en-dash, em-dash...) - Dumelow (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * About the only one I know by heart is the n-dash for date ranges because I use it a lot. I avoid most of the other uses as it's too much trouble to look up each use to see if I'm following our idiosyncratic MOS. Of course, I never understood why the long m-dash has started to supersede the simple comma for subclauses. I'll look at your changes later today.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)