Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign/archive1

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This article takes up where American logistics in the Northern France campaign leaves off, covering the period from September 1944 to January 1945. The volume of material was considerable, so I split the article into two parts; one about transportation, and one about supply. In this phase, the American armies remained largely static through September and October for lack of supplies, particularly ammunition. Initially this was because the rapid advance across France and Belgium created lengthy supply lines; the rehabilitation of railways could not keep pace, and the use of motor transport was a stopgap that caused longer term problems. Then, as the weather deteriorated, the beaches became unusable, and the lack of port capacity became a problem because the ports in Brittany that had been intended to supply the American forces had not been captured. Shipping piled up offshore, unable to discharge, and the resulting shortage of ships threatened the entire Allied war effort. This article has recently passed an A-class review, with source and image reviews. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  05:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

 * Recently reviewed this at A-Class; happy to support as featured quality. User:Iazyges

Comments from Trainsandotherthings
I will try to keep these organized by section. They may arrive out of order though. Shipping Railways
 * This section is quite long to not have any subheaders. I recommend adding some here, if possible.
 * There is no consensus on when a section becomes too long. (WP:MILMOS) I will consider adding subsections. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This section is quite long, if possible, can you divide it into subsections?
 * I will consider this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "These were manufactured at Differdange in Luxembourg, and after it was liberated it began producing steel beams for the Allies." When was Differdange liberated? I believe this merits a brief mention to give some context.


 * On 10 September 1944. I will add this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I will add more comments soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

General comments
 * Having read more of the article, I find that I agree with the points raised by GraemeLeggett. I additionally am of the opinion that the sections on the individual ports are too long, and need to be condensed. With approximately 72 kb of readable prose, this article is at a length where a split could seriously be considered, per WP:SIZERULE. The ports section is disproportionate to the rest of the article in size, and there are some paragraphs that I feel would be more at home on the articles for the individual ports themselves, or even a separate article on English Channel ports in the Siegfried Line campaign, or English Channel ports in the Western Allied offensive 1944-1945, although I know that's getting very niche.
 * Yes, it would be. I'm regretting splitting it in the first place. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I find that there's not a clear narrative or order here, the article seems to jump around with dates and times. There's a lot of information here, and it's well written, but the article needs a clearer focus and better organization to improve its readability. When I first saw this article, I expected it to tell the story of transportation throughout the campaign, with the article written in chronological order and closely linked to the progression of the campaign, but that is not the case at present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One possible solution is to reorganize the article to go by month, instead of being divided by mode of transportation. Covering periods between specific events in the campaign might also be a solution. For instance, there could be a section about the consequences of the Ardennes offensive and how it complicated transportation, which is right now buried within the ports and railways sections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is organised on a topical basis. This is normal fior logistics articles. The sections are arranged in geographical order, so it logically proceeds from the ships to the ports, to the railways, roads and barges, moving closer to the front. A chronological organisation would be incomprehensible, as the rehabiltaion of the ports and the development of the different transportation systems proceeded in parallel. But each subsection is arranged in chronological order. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * However, for the subsequent campaign in 1945, I have been able to relate more tightly to the operations. See User:Hawkeye7/Sandbox6. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am reluctantly going to Oppose this FAC at this time, pending a response to my concerns, as well as those below. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am striking my oppose for now, but this article is not yet at a state in which I could support it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by GraemeLeggett

 * 1) The article does not deliver a narrative. It starts with an introduction, then describes the various ways supplies are moved but doesn't wrap up the tale. It also doesn't - to me - do a good job of relating the logistics to the military operations they were supplying.
 * In particular, it seems to have failed to get across the fact that operations were stalled from September to November while they got the logistics in order. It is in the map but I think it was lost from the narrative when the article was divided. I will rework this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) There is only a single map and yet much of the text is describing moving things from one location to another - places that may be obscure or even if the name is known the spacial relationship may be uncertain to the average reader.
 * I think I can find some more maps. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Variety of language - having just read the article, the word "hauled" has lost all meaning
 * I will address this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The conversion of tonnage looks iffy in places (a function of the rounding function?) but that might just be me - that said Deadweight tonnage needs explanation.
 * Usually the problem with tons is the different types. Feel free to point out specifics where you think the rounding might be weird, as it can be tweaked. Deadweight tonnage has been linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In "Shipping" 3rd paragraph we get the odd-looking "the allocation to Overlord would be reduced to 250,000 deadweight tons (250,000 deadweight tonnes)" a few sentences later we get "50,000 deadweight tons (51,000 deadweight tonnes)" - which gives the impression of different precision, though the same template is used. It probably doesn't help that there isn't an abbreviation for DWT so every conversion takes about a third of the line width. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rounding does seem odd. Adjusted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be easy to fix the technical requirements I mention but still seems to fall short in those narrative/comprehension respects. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems to rely a lot on the US military sources and per FA Criteria 1.c ("representative survey of the relevant literature") has there been any consideration of what historians outside the US military wrote (particularly where the US and their logistic operations overlap - eg the shared ports) or some higher level critical opinion on the logistics relating to the campaign in the round from general writers covering the particular period.
 * The article also uses van Crevald and Dick as sources. I assure you that it is a comprehensive survey of the literature; only about a half dozen or so historians specialise in military logistics (and I'm one of them). Dick is very recent, and a British historian, but he's fairly critical of the Americans. I will add a bit more from Dick to the article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Specialists can get too deep into the subject. What do the "generalists" think of logistics performance and its effects (or not) on the course of the campaign? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The campaign is not well covered. Most writing by operational historians is about the Normandy campaign and the Battle of the Bulge. (Operations Market Garden is well covered, but outside the scope of this article; it is covered in the companion British article.) There is much less interest in the period between, and even less in the 1945 fighting. They write a lot about the crisis that brought the US forces to a halt in September, but are much less concerned about the subject of this article, which is all about how those problems were resolved. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Generalists are actually very uncommon; Dick is a rare example. Most writers are purely concerned with operations. But you can't really understand a World War II campaign without understanding the logistics. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarification - no I don't think this is FA yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but these are the comments that are sought from reviews. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Also


 * 1) Fails WP:Accessibility on alt text for images. I'd never used the tool listed in the sidebar at top before - it's quite useful  GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note though that alt text is not a requirement at FAC. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But accessibility is part of the Manual of Style and Featured Articles are supposed to be the best that Wikipedia delivers.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is regrettable that the FAC requirements and the MOS sometimes conflict. The problem is that much editing of the latter is by editors with no experience in featured article writing. However, I didn't say I wouldn't do it, just that it is not required. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Featured article criteria specifically says "2. It follows the style guidelines...". This is briefly touched on here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive85. I'm not claiming the high ground when it comes to putting them in myself (stones and glass houses and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It goes on to specify the parts of the MOS that must apply. There is no consensus on what other parts apply. (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive66) In the case of WP:Accessibility, there are requirements for complex table markup.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Please archive this nomination. I will take it away and work on it further. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)