Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Rethymno/archive1

Battle of Rethymno

 * Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A very hard fought World War II battle which was part of the 1941 Battle of Crete. So hard fought that both sides lost. It has gone through GAN and ACR and is hopefully now ready for FAC scrutiny. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Images are freely licensed. But the ACR hasn't yet been closed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "dead ground" a link or explanation might be useful.
 * Removed.
 * "All of the Allied units were well dug in and well camouflaged.[24][25] Food stocks were limited and were supplemented by local foraging.[27] Rethmyno itself was defended by a battalion of 800 well-armed Greek civil police.[28]" are you being consistent with the use of hyphens after well?
 * I honestly can't see where you are suggesting that one is missing.
 * "(Luftlande-Sturm-Regiment) " Italics?
 * Done.
 * "Ju 52s" Link? I see you link on a later usage.
 * Oops. Fixed.
 * "No Royal Air Foce (RAF) units were based permanently at Crete" versus " after 29 of their 35 fighters based on Crete were destroyed the RAF ..." is "at Crete" or "on Crete" preferred, or does it not matter?
 * Personally I have tried to mix in, at and on to provide some variety in the prose. "at" does look a little odd so I have changed it to 'on'.
 * "German intelligence summaries stated that the total Allied force on Crete consisted of 5,000 men and that the garrison of Heraklion was 400 strong[32] and that Rethmyno was not formally garrisoned.[24]" and ... and
 * Fixed.
 * "Sturm's plan was for the regiment's 3rd Battalion (2/III), reinforced by two artillery units, would drop approximately 2 mi (3 km) of Rethymno and capture the town." for ... would. Reads oddly, but perhaps it's just Engvar.
 * Ha! That is generous of you. No - I mangled it in an ACR edit. Fixed
 * More soon. As a mostly non-milhist editor, I'm focusing on prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Your points to date addressed. Please keep them coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Refuelling was carried out by hand and took longer than anticipated.[41][20] " Cites in reverse numerical order which is of course OK if you are doing major source first.
 * I automatically tend to go for major source first. But I get picked at for it. And into debates as to which really is "major". So swapped.
 * "Having been informed at 14:30 of the attacks to the west, the Allies realised this may be the prelude to a paratrooper assault.[34]" May should probably be might, as a past event.
 * It should, it should. Fixed.
 * "Campbell ordered his two heavy tanks to counter-attack, but both became immobilised in the rough terrain. Campbell set up ..." Consecutive sentences beginning with Campbell.
 * Fixed.

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "rubber dingy" is this dinghy or engvar?
 * That's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a (I think fairly common) variant of dinghy - wikt:dingy. But I am sure that dinghy is more common, so I have changed it.
 * Cheers Wehwalt, I think that I have addressed everything you have flagged up. Let me know if not, or if you have further comments on my responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support all looks good from here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine
Claiming my spot, will review over the following days. Constantine  ✍  20:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * I see a slightly incoherent treatment of ranks: why 'Lieutenant General' for the Germans but 'Major-general' for the British?
 * Standardised.


 * confusion and delays at the airfields in Greece 'in the Greek mainland', perhaps?
 * Done.


 * Background
 * In Directive 31 Hitler asserted -> In Führer Directive 31 Hitler asserted... I also note that based on the list at the article redirected to, the directive outlining Unternehmen Merkur was 28, not 31. This needs to be checked.
 * Good spot. Thank you. 31 is about military organisation in the Balkans and I assume that I became confused. Text of Directive 28 for checking.
 * Please link also Führer Directive.
 * Done.


 * Opposing forces
 * The British forces had seven commanders Are the British forces on Crete meant, or in the theatre of operations generally? Please clarify.
 * "... especially in the backwater of Crete. The British forces had seven commanders in seven months" seemed clear to me, but further clarified.


 * I will use the Hellenic Army's concise history (henceforth 'Concise History', I added it to the sources) to check some things and recommend some additions/clarifications, but will simply provide you with the information here and let you incorporate it as you see fit. I hope that is OK. I could probably scrounge up some German-language sources too, but this would take a few more days, and the German bibliography is generally well utilized by English-speaking authors; the Greek, not so much, even for a conflict taking place on Greek soil.
 * Yes, I noticed a distinct lack. And a couple I found - in English but by Greeks - did not seem very reliable. I consoled my self with WP:NONENG: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance". The information you give below is incredibly helpful, thank you.


 * The Greeks were 2,300 strong and ill-disciplined, ill-equipped and extremely short of ammunition. per the Concise History (p. 229), the Rethymno Group comprised the local reservists' training battalion, and a battalion (Τάγμα Οπλιτών Χωροφυλακής, roughly "Gendarmerie Soldiers' Battalion") made up of the Gendarmerie Academy that had been moved to the island in March (900 men, 15 officers, p. 224). That would also be the '800 well-armed Greek civil police' (which therefore were not really 'civil police', since the Gendarmerie was a semi-paramilitary body) in Rethymno itself, mentioned below (and which should be moved up, since the landing strip is discussed separately from the Rethymno city area).
 * Added "paramilitary" and the link and moved it up.
 * Does that mean that the local reservists' training battalion was ~1,400 strong? Does the Concise History give its strength?
 * Hmmm, no it does not, but it certainly was not that strong. The bulk of the Greek units in the area were likely the two 'Regiments', each probably around 600 strong (the total manpower of the eight recruit training battalions was 4910 men and officers). However, there was also (pp. 223-224) a recently formed civil guard (πολιτοφυλακή), meant to guard rear area installations, with a total strength of ca. 1,500 men, also divided into four battalions (one per prefecture). The source that gives the number of 2,300 likely omits the gendarmerie battalion from this total, right? Then the 2,300 would make sense, ca. 1200-1300 men in the two 'Regiments', some 350-400 men in the civil guard, and the rest from the reservist battalion. Total Greek forces would then be ca. 3200, which is (almost) the number in the infobox. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I follow what you say, but "each probably" and guessing at the strength of the civil guard, or even whether they were at, or how many were at, Rethymno smacks a bit of OR. I would prefer to use the Concise History for Greek strengths, but it seems that the only non-Greek sources give "precise" numbers, while the CH would seem to broadly support them. I don't see any specific changes i can make here, but I am sure that you will come back at me if I am wrong.


 * The Australian 2/1st Battalion (2/1st) ... was positioned on and around Hill B. per the Concise History (p. 229), the Australians had ten field guns in total (6x75 mm and 4x100 mm, I assume the calibres are not exact)
 * I take this to mean that you would like the article to give the number and calibre of artillery pieces available to the Allies? I have done so. Long gives 4x75 mm and 4x100 mm, so I have used those numbers.


 * The Greek 4th Regiment was situated on the ridge between the two Australian units and the 5th Regiment... Again based on the Concise History (p. 224), these 'regiments' were so only in name. They were in fact battalions from the recruit training centres in the Peloponnese, evacuated in April. In total, there were 8 of them on Crete, some 4.900 men in total. These were renamed as 'regiments', but were completely worthless, as the recruits comprising them had received a few days' worth of training at most. Their equipment was disparate, with 5-20 bullets per gun at most, while about a third of the men had no guns at all.
 * Agreed. Which is why the article describes them as "ill-disciplined, ill-equipped and extremely short of ammunition". Is there something you would like to adding or subtracting from that?
 * Hmmm, the main point I'd like to see added would be that the Greeks were a hodgepodge of recent, ad hoc recruit and armed civilian formations, most of them with barely any training at all, with the gendarmerie academy battalion virtually the only somewhat well-trained and well-armed formation. And the 'extremely short on ammunition' could be clarified with the numbers given above. Personal aside here: I admit I am leery of blanket descriptions of 'ill-disciplined' troops. This always triggers alarm bells in me. I've seen this often enough, and whenever I've been able to examine the views of both sides from the respective literature (not just for British descriptions of Greeks, but also German views of Italians, US views of Chinese, etc), there's usually more than a smidgen of racial/ethnic prejudice and superiority complex at work, that tends to obscure the actual root causes—to whit, when you are unarmed, or with an antique Gras rifle with ten bullets, and have had a week's training at best, where on earth would 'discipline' come from?—reveals a lack of understanding of and engagement with the troops in question, obscures/explains away any omissions by the respective commander—their deficiencies being well known, why did the British not undertake to at least arm these men properly during the previous weeks? Was it really that difficult for the British Empire to find 10,000 rifles and ammunition?—and, finally, it is a code word that prepares the reader for the ultimate failure, because when one has 'ill-disciplined troops' that were not up to the task, of course one would fail. Admittedly, the lack of discipline may well be true here (again, we are talking about troops with barely any training), but it is better to rely on objective facts than value judgments. Say that the 4th and 5th Regiments were battalions composed of green recruits with a few days' basic training (verbatim from the 'Concise History') and describe their lack of armament, which by itself is enough information. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A good point. I have removed "ill-disciplined" in favour of something more nuanced. ("most had received little training") And added more detail on the ammunition situation. See what you think.


 * Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign the campaign began on 14 May (Concise History, p. 234), and also aimed at preventing shipping from reaching Crete, forcing the supply of the Allied forces on Crete to happen during night, and mostly with smaller vessels.
 * Changed to "the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters".


 * Battle
 * In Greece the Germans as above, 'In the mainland...', which makes the 'in mainland Greece' after redundant.
 * Oops. Resolved.


 * the Allies realised this might be the prelude to a paratrooper assault. Might we also add explicitly that this meant that the Germans had lost the element of surprise, and that the delay between the bombing and the landings allowed the Allies to recover from the bombardment?
 * What would you suggest is added to further emphasise that surprise was lost. The Allies did not know that they were also going to be attacked. They could only strongly suspect that "this might be the prelude to a paratrooper assault". The article says of the bombardment "as fewer than 20 aircraft were involved it was ineffective" so there was not much to recover from, even given a source - Concise History I assume - stating that there was time for recovery a reader may be left a little puzzled as to how one recovers from something which was anyway inefffective.
 * Good point, comment stricken. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * total of 160 Ju 52s 161 according to the Concise History (p. 239)
 * Thank you. An odd error by me. Well picked up. Corrected.


 * at the Greek airfields mainland airfields
 * Done.


 * The surviving Germans of the 2/I Battalion...suffered 400 dead or wounded. per Concise History (p. 240), the paratroopers first captured the village of Stavromenos, and from there attacked Hill A. The rest is more or less the same.
 * Yes, Beevor says "The main part of Kroh's force fell round the olive oil factory at Stavromenos, two kilometres to the east" (of Hill A). I have tweaked accordingly.


 * many members of the 2/II Battalion I think you mean the 2/III Battalion
 * D'oh! Given that the 2/II was at Heraklion, I do of course. Fixed.


 * landed as planned near Platanes per Concise History (p. 240), to the west of Platanes, at Perivolia, which was held by the Greek reservists' training battalion, which, being virtually unarmed, simply collapsed.
 * Added.


 * the Cretan police as noted above, not the Cretan police, but the Gendarmerie recruits
 * Changed.


 * per Concise History (p. 240), Campbell requested reinforcements from Allied HQ for his counterattack, but this was not granted. The Georgioupolis group (rest of 19th Brigade including brigade HQ), which faced no attack and thus was available, was sent to Chania instead.
 * Added.


 * At first light on 21 May Concise History offers some details here. There were two axes: 2/11th Battalion attacked towards the coastal plain and part the 5th Greek Regiment towards Platanes, and the other with 2/1st against Hill A and the rest of 5th Regiment towards Stavromenos (p. 244). 60 prisoners were taken at Hill A,, the rest is as described (pp. 244-245). The Greeks reached the outskirts of Stavromenos in early morning, but were pinned down, and 5th Regiment commander asked for artillery support and a tank to attack it, but Campbell denied this and ordered him to return to his initial positions after leaving a company with 2/1st Battalion (p. 245).
 * Constantine, I deliberately haven't gone into too much detail here. Long, pages 262-263, gives further detail, similar to the Concise History's, but I have communicated it in summary style. I confess that there seems to be no logical stopping point on the spectrum from "it neglects no major facts or details" broad-brush overview to a platoon action by platoon action "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail", but to me going into the detail of which Allied unit did exactly what, Hill A aside, creeps over the line into the latter.
 * I figured as much. I merely wanted to give the option, in case the information was not available. As the article author, judging the appropriate level of detail is of course up to you ;). The only thing I would insist on would be to clarify the units involved on the Allied side (2/11th and 5th Regiment), as this allows the reader to follow the tactical dispositions. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad - added. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The German 2/III Battalion per Concise History (p. 245), in the afternoon (17:15), the Gendarmerie managed to recapture the village of Kastelakia, and the Germans were restricted to the cemetery of Perivolia around the church of Agios Georgios. The same source also gives total German losses for 21st May as about 70 killed, 300 wounded, and 200 prisoner.
 * How is "The German 2/III Battalion was unable to renew its attack on Rethymno on the 21st as it was pinned down around Perivolia by the Greek gendarmerie from the town and armed civilians." I have added the casualty figures.
 * "The German 2/III Battalion renewed its attack on Rethymno on the 21st, but was beaten back and pinned down around Perivolia by the Greek gendarmerie from the town and armed civilians"? Since the Germans did actually attack in the direction of Rethymno, and were driven back, losing ground. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are not unanimous about that. But it is a nuance and I consider it reasonable to use the Greek history for actions solely involving Greeks. (On the Allied side.) So done.


 * per Concise History (pp. 247-248), from the morning of the 22nd, the Luftwaffe increaisngly flew bombing sorties in order to assist the paratroopers, including against the city of Rethymno, where there were several civilian dead (including the local prefect and the Gendarmerie commadner). Otherwise the information on the day's events is about the same.
 * Added.


 * per Concise History (pp. 250-251), Rethymno was bombed again on the 23rd for about seven hours (13:00-20:00), including the local hospital, despit eit being marked with a red cross. On the 23rd, another attack on Perivolia failed (p. 251), and a three-hour truce was arranged at the airport to bury the dead. During this, the local German commander, having learned of the German successes further west, requested the Australians' surrender, but was refused (p. 251). Another attack on Perivolia in the early hours of the 24th failed (p. 251). This was followed by a German counterattack from Agios Georgios, but was defeated by 14:00 (p. 251).
 * Some details, especially on the bombing of Rethymno, added. Some others not, on the grounds that it is creeping into "unnecessary detail" territory. See comment above.


 * On 26 May the Australians... per Concise History (p. 255), this was a joint attack with the 5th Regiment, and captured 100 German prisoners, of whom 42 were wounded that were abandoned in the factory. On the 27th, the Germans at Perivolia attacked the Gendarmerie positions at Kastelakia, without any result (p. 255).
 * Information on the factory added.


 * The Germans attacked and isolated the Allied positions east of Rethymno. The Allies had all but consumed their food supplies and exhausted their ammunition and so Campbell surrendered some detail should be added here. Per Concise History (p. 259), the commanders of the 4th and 5th Greek regiments decided to withdraw on 22:00 of 29 May, to Adele and Arkadi respectively. 5th Regiment, which comprised many Cretan recruits, then simply dispersed, while 4th Regiment surrendered to the Germans. The Concise History also notes that Campbell surrendered after noon on the 30th, and that the commander and many men of the 2/11th Battalion fled to the mountains, but it does not mention whether they managed to escape or not. There's some info in other sources (e.g. about locals helping several British, Australian and NZ soldiers to escape via the Preveli Monastery though.
 * Time of surrender, withdrawal and fates of the 4th and 5th Regiments added.


 * Aftermath
 * than in the entire campaign in the Balkans. "...than in the entire campaign in the Balkans until then", technically, the Battle of Crete is part of the Balkans campaign.
 * Done.


 * The Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations "...during World War II", perhaps also mention that this was due to the high casualties among the German paratroopers specifically.
 * Done.


 * Both the 2/1st and 2/11th battalions reiterate that this is the Australian units you are talking about.
 * Why? I haven't written 'the 2/III battalion, which as I mentioned above was a German unit' each time I mention it. After fully naming at first mention it is usual to then just give whatever commonly used shortening was in parentheses afterwards.


 * I feel the section is a bit thin. Could we have some (brief) additional information about the subsequent fate of both the Australian units and of the German ones? The German paratroopers for example fought in Italy after 1943. Was there any assessment of the battle in the post-war works you have examined? For example, the failure of the Allies to eliminate the Germans, even though the latter made a complete mess of the first day, is quite surprising. This is something that probably should be addressed somehow. Crete in general is a German victory that should not have been one, and was helped along by lethargic Allied leadership, so perhaps this can be analyzed a bit?
 * I don't think that this is the place for any of that. The detailed fate of the various battalions belongs in the histories on them or their parent units. I would be unhappy working in what a descendant division did in a different country, 30 months after two of its battalions fought on Crete. Logically this would open the door for a full history of each unit involved.
 * What happened at Rethymno, according to the RSs, was irrelevant to the outcome of the battle. No Allied reinforcements were sent, so Campbell not completely wiping out the Germans made no difference to the outcome of the Battle of Crete. Rethymno would only have effected this battle if the Germans had captured the landing strip, and there was never a possibility of this. And if it had been captured it would have ended in the same result - a German victory.
 * Again, I don't think this article is the place for an analysis of the Battle of Crete. That has its own article. And, as noted, the Battle of Rethymno was all but irrelevant to its outcome.
 * Hmmm, all right. My point was rather whether Rethymno itself was analyzed in any way, either independently or as part of the general Allied failure in Crete (which probably all stem from the same root causes)—in other words, whether Rethymno was indicative/representative of the battle as a whole—and what lessons could be (and if, indeed, they were) drawn from it. Constantine  ✍  11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * and many more murdered less formally is a rather awkward turn of phrase, just state outright that many more were murdered in reprisals and atrocities.
 * Tweaked.

That's it, content-wise. There's some minor prose issues, but they are dealt with by Wikibenboy94 below. Once the above comments are done, I'll make another pass through the article, before supporting. Overall the article was a nice read, and easy to follow. Well done, as usual. Constantine  ✍  18:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Constantine, you have gone well above and beyond on this one. Your input has been extremely helpful and I much appreciate it. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments above. Note that this does not necessarily mean that I have actioned them as you may have wished. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Constantine, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for the changes, I've commented above on the few remaining issues. Looks


 * Hi Constantine, apologies for taking so long to respond.. I think that I have covered everything. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries, Gog the Mild. Your changes are good, and I am now happy to support. Thanks for your work on this. If you ever want to take on the main Battle of Crete article or other sub-articles, ping me; apart from the Concise History I've got some German sources that might be useful/interesting (particularly in somewhat demolishing the myth of the elite Fallschirmjäger). Cheers, Constantine  ✍  10:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for getting so involved in this Constantine, it is much appreciated.
 * Do you have Gola (2006)?
 * I assume that you have noticed Battle of Heraklion which is currently (also) working its way through FAC.
 * I am hoping to do articles on three more of the component conflicts of the Battle of Crete, but that article seems to have a lot of strong opinions and the current shape and weights of the article are so far from how I would like it to be that I suspect that I will decide to allocate the time to something else when I get there. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at Battle of Heraklion as soon as I may. I don't have Gola 2006, but I have on order from an antiques bookshop his other book on the fall of Greece, which may include Crete as well (it's probably going to get here sometime in the next fortnight). I am however currently reading Sönke Neitzel's book on the institutional history of the German military from 1871 to today (Deutsche Krieger, if it ever gets translated into English, I heartily recommend it), and there are some remarks that the performance of the Fallschirmjäger was inadequate, partly because of the insufficient homogenization of the corps, with those who were carried over from the police (Police Regiment 'General Göring') still notably being less proficient than their army counterparts, and that this was not overcome until after Crete clearly highlighted their deficiencies. Student's planning is also heavily criticized by German sources (underestimation of Allied force strength, lack of a clear Schwerpunkt). Constantine  ✍  18:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Source for Australian/Greek overall strength in the infobox?
 * Arguably OR, so removed.


 * Source for alternate spellings in note 1?
 * Oops. Added.


 * How are you organizing Sources?
 * My A to Z went to pot. They should now be in alphabetical order, with "2/11th Battalion" under A for Australian War Memorial and the obit under H for The Herald.


 * The obit has a specific date that should be included, and why include publisher?
 * Date added, publisher removed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks as ever for the review Nikkimaria. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Now have a citeref error on Hellenic Army History Directorate, and that ref if kept needs cleaning up - endash in title, repeating publisher as author when other refs do not, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have found material in Hellenic Army History Directorate not covered by an English language source and so am now using it. This loses the citeref error, and I have tidied up Constantine's formatting. Re the duplication, apologies: I had understood that one should reproduce the author and publisher as given on the title page. This work gives the author as "Grèce. Dieúthynsī istorías stratoú" and the publisher as"Έκδοση Διευθύνσεως ιστορίας στρατού". Both translate as Hellenic Army History Directorate. Now better educated re this unusual case, I have deleted the publisher. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wikibenboy94
Hi. This is my first contribution to a peer review so I apologize upfront if some of my suggestions for the prose come across as naïve or amateruish, regardless of my efforts in adhering to WP:FACR. I've currently got my own review open for the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered with the intention of getting it to FAC, and was directed to one of your reviews on by ImaginesTigers you had reached out to. However, it seems that peer review is now on the verge of closure so I have moved on to this relatively-new one instead.
 * Hi, I appreciate your spending the time to review this.


 * Linking


 * "heavy weapons" needs amending as it links to the video game Heavy Weapon.
 * Oops. Who knew? Fixed.

The following terms in bold should be linked:


 * Ah ha! There are nuances to how editors approach linking. I tend towards the light touch per MOS:OVERLINK. Clearly you tend towards the "better save than sorry" view. IMO "Australian", "Greek", "paratrooper" and "Adolf Hitler" fall into the not needing to be linked category under this guideline. Eg it seems unlikely that many readers of the article will be unfamiliar with Adolf Hitler.
 * "artillery" is already linked in the lead but not the article! Good spot. Fixed.
 * "Belligerent" and "taxiing" now linked.


 * "the Greek island"
 * "Australian and Greek forces"
 * "paratrooper"
 * "artillery"
 * "Belligerent"
 * "Adolf Hitler"
 * "Taxiing"


 * Lead


 * "defended the airstrip near Pigi[...]" Is there just the one airstrip? This is the first and only mention of it so perhaps it should be referred to it as "an airstrip", or otherwise clarify its location before the noun?
 * "Pigi" removed; rephrased as 'defended the town of Rethymno the nearby airstrip'. Yes, there was just the one.
 * That change doesn't seem gramatically correct to me, like it's missing a word.
 * Sorry. Somehow the cut and paste dropped a word. The article reads "defended the town of Rethymno and the nearby airstrip against a German paratrooper attack".


 * "The attack on Rethmyno was one of four airborne assaults on Crete on 20 May [...] following on from attacks against Maleme airfield and the main port of Chania in the west of Crete in the morning." Were these all attacks from German forces?
 * They were. Clarified.


 * "were scheduled to drop the 2nd Regiment over Rethymno[...]" When? Afternoon? Evening?
 * Added.


 * "Those German units dropping near the Allied positions suffered very high casualties, both from ground fire and once they had landed". I would suggest re-wording this to "The German units dropped near the Allied positions suffered very high casualties, both from ground fire and upon landing."
 * I prefer the current version, but given that your other suggestions have been insightful, perhaps you could expand on in what way(s) your version would be an improvement?
 * I suppose "those" is better if it's referring to a specific unit(s); "the" might imply it was all of them. I thought "upon landing" just felt snappier, and without having to include the use of a pronoun.
 * "upon landing": I can see pros and cons to both, and so have gone with your version as the more concise.


 * "The Allied Commander-in-Chief Middle East, General Archibald Wavell," This could potentially mislead readers into thinking the General is called "Middle East" before his actual name is mentioned immediately after. Recommend changing this to "Middle East's Allied Commander-in-Chief" or "Allied Commander-in-Chief of Middle East".
 * No, his title was "Commander-in-Chief Middle East". It can't be broken. Do you really think that a reader may think that there might be a person named "Middle East"? That they would be sub-literate enough to not realise that the lack of a comma between "Chief" and "Middle" rules this out? And if they did and were, that the immediate clarification of this by giving the actual name and rank of the holder of the position is not sufficient?


 * "Some Australians took to the hills[...]" "Took to the hills" should be replaced per MOS:IDIOM.
 * Rephrased.


 * Background


 * "the Ploiești oil fields in Romania would be within range of British bombers based on the island." Maybe I'm just being ignorant but what's the significant of the oil fields? For fuel?
 * Well, that's the main product of oil fields. I could stick a footnote in on their output and its importance to the Nazi war machine if you think it wouldn't be "unnecessary detail".
 * Thanks, I didn't know much about the purpose of oil fields. I probably wouldn't bother on the note but on the other hand it wouldn't harm I suppose.
 * I am inclined to leave it. There are so many aspects where one could give a fuller geo-political explanation, but one ends up with a cluttered article or a silly number of extensive notes.


 * Allies


 * "Equipment was scarce in the Mediterranean, especially in the backwater of Crete." This is more just my opinion, but I think replacing "especially" with "particularly" would make it sound a little more formal.
 * Done.

Any clearer?
 * "In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops had arrived from Greece," Are these part of the 42,000? If so, maybe clarify "27,000 of the Commonwealth troops".
 * I think that would put the emphasis in the wrong place, but I take your point. I have tweaked elsewhere, so it now reads"When the Germans attacked, the Allies had available a total of 42,000 men on Crete: 10,000 were Greek and 32,000 Commonwealth. In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops had arrived from Greece, many lacking any equipment other than their personal weapons, or not even those; 9,000 of these were further evacuated and 18,000 remained when the battle commenced."
 * I'm confused now as to how many Commonwealth soldiers there were at the start. Is "when the Germans attacked" and "when the battle commenced" referring to the same point in time, as the former sentence mentions there were 32,000 soldiers, but then 18,000 in the latter?
 * Ah. Probably because I have reversed the chronology. D'oh! How's "In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece, many lacking any equipment other than their personal weapons, or not even those; 9,000 of them were further evacuated and 18,000 remained when the battle commenced. With the pre-existing garrison of 14,000 this gave the Allies a total of 32,000 Commonwealth troops to face the German attack, supplemented by 10,000 Greeks."


 * "Both Australian battalions had fought in Greece" Do we know how long before Rethymno?
 * Clarified.


 * "The Australians totalled 1,270 experienced veterans, and there were several smaller attached Commonwealth units." I would change "and there" to "with".
 * Why? That seems less clear and less precise to me.


 * "The Greeks were 2,300 strong and ill-disciplined, ill-equipped and extremely short of ammunition". Change "and" to "but" to illustrate the disparity between their size and inadequacies.
 * Done. (But with fingers crossed for the PoV introduced. I am not sure that it is our role to illustrate such points, as opposed to stating the facts and allowing a reader to draw their own conclusions.)


 * Germans

Others are less generous.
 * "German intelligence summaries stated that the total Allied force on Crete consisted of 5,000 men," Was this deduction accurate? I thought the total Allied force amounted to many thousands more?
 * They did. As stated earlier. One source on the German performance in this area "The Germans, during their period of seemingly unstoppable conquest, paid relatively little attention to the art of intelligence. Such over-confidence was revealed in the language of their summaries which phrased mere suppositions with the cast-iron confidence of undeniable truths. That of 19 May, on the eve of battle, categorically stated that the British garrison on Crete was no more than 5,000 strong, with only 400 men at Heraklion, and none at Rethymno."


 * Paratroopers


 * "The design of the German parachutes". Did this apply to all German parachutes used during WWII? If so I would suggest changing to "standard German parachutes".
 * The source only states that this applies to the parachutes of German paratroopers (up to and including this operation). It almost certainly (OR alert) does not apply to at least some other types of German military parachutes of the period.


 * "were dropped in separate containers and until and unless the paratroopers reached them they were helpless". Grammatical error. I think the last part of the sentence could be a bit more formal or elaborated upon.
 * Elaborated on.
 * The grammatical error still remains: "and until and unless".
 * I had wondered what you considered that error to be. Broken into a separate sentence.


 * "German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft, and so were trained to land on all fours [...] Once out of the plane, German paratroopers were unable to control their fall or to influence where they landed." Why was it required that they leap headfirst, and what about this manoeuvre meant that they had to land on all fours? Similarly, did the inability for German paratroopers to control their fall and destination only result from the types of parachutes they used, or did this apply to any country's paratroopers?
 * "Why" and "what": the source does not say. "Many technical problems remained ... German parachute training called for ..." without (much) further explanation. I could guess, but that would be OR.
 * "control": I don't know. My sources only refer to German paratroopers.


 * "Paratroopers were carried by the reliable tri-motored Ju 52. Each transport could lift thirteen paratroopers, with their weapons containers carried on the planes' external bomb racks." I'm not sure about the placement of the acknowledgement of the Ju 52 by name at the end of the section only after being referred to as "the aircraft" several times throughout. Also, is the Ju considered reliable for its aforementioned carrying capacity, or some other detail?
 * "aircraft" is used when the type of aircraft used is unknown or irrelevant. Ju 52s are only introduced at the end, because it is only in relation to this operation that we know that they were used. It is common for non-front line aircraft to be used for training. Other aircraft may have been used for other operations. The sources don't say.
 * I assumed that the paragraph was only referring to details on paratroopers for that specific battle rather than the war in general, so if this is the case, to avoid confusion it might be worth adding to the introduction "During the war German paratroopers were also required[...]".
 * Given that the article is about a paratrooper attack during WWII, that the preceding paragraph is about the planning for a paratrooper landing during WWII I think that this would be clear to a reader from context. And I can't write "During the war"; as stated above "The source only states that this applies to the parachutes of German paratroopers (up to and including this operation)", the situation may have continued, it may not - I don't know and, given that "The Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations" I don't think it is relevant.


 * Initial assault


 * "The aircraft which dropped them were scheduled[...]" I presume by the use of the plural "were" that it was more than one aircraft?
 * Yes.


 * "In Greece the Germans were having problems with their hastily constructed airfield facilities in mainland Greece[...]" Greece is mentioned twice. Recommend keeping the first instance and changing to read "in the mainland" or some other variation.
 * Ah. I tweaked it for a previous reviewer and clearly didn't check thoroughly enough. Fixed


 * "the pre-assault softening up from the German air support" Shouldn't the correct tense be "softened"? Also it may be beneficial to use more accessible wording for those unfamiliar with military jargon.
 * No, "softening" is correct. Rephrased to be more accessible.


 * "many members of the 2/II Battalion had been dropped in the wrong location," Do we know why?
 * No. (I mean yes - paratrooper operations were notorious for lack of accuracy (on D-Day some Americans were dropped 40 miles off target), the totally unexpected ground fire will have seriously distracted the pilots and at another attack site the same date it turned out that interpretation of the reconnaissance photos used to plan the attack had resulted in a valley being mistaken for a hill. But that is all OR. No source specifically says.)


 * "Around 18:00[...]" "At around 18:00" is more gramatically correct.
 * Done.


 * "but were beaten off by the Cretan police," Sounds a bit informal. Would suggest replacing with "fended off" or "repelled" as examples.
 * "fended off" - a nautical term - seems even more informal, and repelled suggests an inactivity on the part of those doing the repelling which wasn't the case. I don't see a problem with "beaten off", but happy to consider synonyms other than those two.


 * Subsequent operations


 * "this was disrupted when they were mistakenly bombed by their own aircraft." The article mentions this happening twice to the Germans. Were there any casulties/deaths do we know?
 * None are mentioned in the sources.


 * "The German 2/III Battalion was unable to renew its attack on Rethymno on the 21st as it was pinned down around Perivolia by the Cretan police from the town and armed civilians." Not clear about whether these are the same aforementioned police and civilians from Rethymno or some from Perivolia. If both groups were from the same location I would re-arrange the wording to "Cretan police and armed civilians from the town."
 * We don't know where the armed civilians came from precisely, but it is known that at least some did not come from the town. Hence the arguably clumsy wording.


 * "When Ju 52s flew over, the Allies ceased fire and displayed captured panels requesting resupply; they received weapons, ammunition and equipment." What are these panels, and how did the Allies use them to communicate (in the next paragraph it mentions the use of signal panels, which are presumably the same thing)? Also, I presume the supplies came from the Ju 52's (via parachute?) as they were tricked into thinking they were Germans?
 * Yes, they were signal panels. The sources don't go into the specifics of how they were used to communicate nor specify what type of aircraft dropped the supplies. On the latter there is probably enough in the sources for me to specify Ju 52s, but I felt a little happier hedging as in the sentence you quote.


 * Surrender


 * "Greek casualties are unknown". Would include "The number of" at the start of the sentence.
 * Done.


 * Misc.


 * Instances of "machineguns" need to be changed to "machine guns".
 * wikt:machinegun


 * "The Rethymno landing strip was about 8 mi (13 km)[...]" The full unit of measurement "miles" should be used for clarity; its abbreviation of three fewer letters isn't much difference.
 * Done.


 * Punctuation requirements

The following words/punctuation in bold need a comma or hyphen between them:


 * Commas


 * The month–day–year dates need commas per MOS:COMMA.
 * I have not used any MDY dates, they are all in DMY format.


 * "but airfield construction took place, radar sites were built and stores delivered."
 * A comma inserted after "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent".


 * "grouped under the 11th Air Corps (XI Fliegerkorps) which was commanded by[...]"
 * "after 29 of their 35 fighters based on Crete were destroyed the RAF rebased its aircraft there to Alexandria."
 * Rephrased.


 * "Faced by a superior force of Germans equipped with tanks and artillery Campbell surrendered[...]"
 * "supplies and communication facilities."
 * "Rifles, automatic weapons, mortars, ammunition, food and water were dropped"
 * "The transport aircraft had to fly straight, low and slowly,"
 * ''"At the same time its 1st Battalion (2/I),"
 * "The paratrooper drops did not occur simultaneously instead a succession of easy targets[...]" (Semi-colon after "simultaneously"; comma after "instead".)
 * Comma inserted after "simultaneously" (only).


 * "The German 2/I Battalion dug in on the hilltop having suffered 400 dead or wounded."
 * "At first light on 21 May the Allies[...]"
 * I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove them when copy editing for GoCE.)


 * "a radio was transferred to rubber dinghy and this paddled towards the beach. The radio, dinghy and seaplane[...]"
 * "The next day Wavell ordered[...]"
 * "On the morning of 29 May a German force[...]"
 * "On the morning of 20 May two reinforced[...]"


 * Where I have not commented it is because I have already covered the principle - serial comma, time commas, or because I do not feel that a comma is required, necessary nor aids understanding.


 * You are, I gather, a "commaist"; I am, you will have gathered, not. During a FAC discussion of one of my nominations earlier this year an experienced reviewer is also a commaist gently mocked themself by quoting the grammar writer Lynn Truss.


 * The Comma War seems to be becoming a running joke. See the comments here from 15 minutes ago! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hyphens


 * "was code named "Operation Mercury[...]"
 * Done.


 * "part transported by air"
 * That would imply that all of the division went part way by air and part way by sea, which was not the case.


 * "the German air operations over Rethymno were ill coordinated"
 * Done.

Greetings and many thanks for this review. I have now addressed all of your comments above and look forward to your further thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . I think that i have addressed all of your comments above and I would welcome your further thoughts on my responses. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Gog. Apologies for not getting back to you. I have no qualms with your most recent responses, and yes while I am a "commaist" as you say I can't do much to persuade you otherwise if you don't hold the same views (I've understood since that there is less support for serial commas than I first thought!). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have certainly been surprised since I started doing work at GoCE three years ago at how many things which I thought were accepted practice, are actually variants. And sometimes a minority one. Hyphens is an area which repeatedly trips me. And I seem to get no better at copy editing my own work.
 * I much appreciate your comments so far, and the article is the better for them. Do you have further suggestions, or do you feel able to either support or oppose?
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One thing I did come across initially and had to remind myself it was referring to the same ones was that the Matilda tanks are only referred to by name once (mentions: "Two Matilda II heavy tanks" ... "his two heavy tanks" ... "their two abandoned tanks" ... "The two recovered tanks"). I think at least for the second instance they should be referred to as "Matilda tanks". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I possibly overdo the 'give full name at first mention only' thing. "Matilda II" added to second mention and to the footnote. Thanks again for the review and the support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. Can't find any further reasons why it shouldn't be. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

 * the images are missing alt text
 * Added.


 * can the infobox small font be avoided per MOS:SMALL?
 * It can. Fixed.

Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for that. Both issues fixed I believe. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Question from SnowFire
This is not a full review; just one nitpick / question.
 * Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign to establish air superiority; after 29 of their 35 fighters based on Crete were destroyed the RAF rebased its aircraft there to Alexandria.

First off, this sentence is structured a bit funny (you might think the "their" in "their 35 fighters" refers to the Germans as you read along, but nope, surprise, it was the RAF retroactively). However, it seems to also raise more questions. What were the losses among non-fighter aircraft? Were there any? If not, shouldn't it just say "the remaining 6 fighters"? I'm not entirely sure that this is the place to go into deep detail about the German air campaign against Crete, but if you're going to go into it, I'd suggest rephrasing to be a bit clearer about what's going on. How is it now?
 * Strictly the semi colon makes the phrase grammatically correct. But I take you point and have rephrased to "Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to establish air superiority. The RAF rebased its surviving aircraft to Alexandria after 29 of their 35 Crete-based fighters were destroyed."

Checking the history, I see that this used to be vaguer and just say "the Germans conducted a bombing campaign to establish air superiority and forced the RAF to rebase its aircraft in Alexandria." Maybe revert to that? If the details are important, though, I'd rephrase and give all of them - "Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign to establish air superiority. After RAF losses of 29 out of 35 of their fighters and (INSERT OTHER RELEVANT LOSSES HERE OR ELSE MAKE CLEAR IT WAS JUST THOSE 35 AIRCRAFT AT ALL), the British rebased their remaining aircraft to Alexandria."
 * I need to be careful to to not step outside the constraints of the information provided by the sources, but the rephrase may have allayed your concerns?

SnowFire (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point SnowFire, thanks. How does it look now? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think skipping the semicolon is better since separate sentences, one for the Germans and one for the RAF, is better. So it does read better, thanks.  One question on your addition: " the surrounding waters?"  Does this mean the outlying islands?  Or does this mean that the Germans were bombing the British fleet as well?  If so, maybe say that directly?  But maybe this is overly nitpicky.  SnowFire (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It means that they conducted a bombing campaign against the surrounding waters as well as against Crete - which by definition is mostly land. Yes, in practice this meant attacking Allied warships, submarines, transport craft and seaplanes. As I don't go into detail of what was attacked during "bombing campaign against Crete" I don't think it appropriate to do so for just that against the surrounding waters. Remember that - as stated - the objective was to "to establish air superiority"; attacking specific targets was secondary. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed
I reviewed this for the Milhist A-Class assessment, and felt it was in good shape then. I see there has been substantive and comprehensive feedback provided by other FA reviewers, but am taking another look at this to see if I can nitpick anything else. Comments, if any to follow. Zawed (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Infobox
 * In the strength section of the infobox, there is no value associated with Support units. In the Allies section of the article, I believe this is intended to be covered by note 2 which only gives an absolute value for the artillery. Perhaps instead, say "Unknown number of support personnel" or "90+ support personnel"?
 * I have gone with your first suggestion.

Background
 * expeditionary force, maybe link to Order of battle for the Battle of Greece
 * Done.


 * largely opposed to a German attack on Crete. German seems redundant here.
 * True. Removed.

Battle
 * It was 16:00 before this pre-assault air attack commenced, it was limited to fewer than 20 aircraft and it was ineffective. repeated use of "it was". Suggest something like "It was 16:00 before this pre-assault air attack commenced; limited to fewer than 20 aircraft, it was ineffective."
 * Tweaked along those lines.


 * Having been informed at 14:30 of the attacks to the west, the Allies realised this might be the prelude... is this realisation in response to the 14:30 news or the 16:00pm pre assault and is the Allies here meant to refer to the overall forces on Crete (which is the impression I get) or more specifically the garrison at Rethymno?
 * Clarified.

Surrender
 * Many men from the 2/11th Battalion struck off on their own I think "struck out" would read better?
 * Changed to "made off". Does that work?


 * That's about it for me. Zawed (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that . Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators
, : This nomination now has image and source review passes, three supports – two by non-military history regulars – and a fourth review running smoothly. Could I have permission to throw in the next one? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

HF
Looks like this one's been running awhile, so I'll give it a review. Standard WikiCup potential entry disclaimer. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's just something wrong on my end of the system, but for the map in the Germans section, I'm just getting a caption, with the alt text as a link to the image I have to click on to see the image. May just be my system, though.
 * I have just checked it on four different devices and it displays fine on all of them, so I suspect the issue to be at your end.


 * I notice both Lieutenant General and Lieutenant-general are used in different points to refer to Student's rank; it might be best to standardize.
 * Very diplomatic. Fixed.


 * "German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft" - Is this because of equipment restrictions, plane design, how they were trained to do this, or for other reasons? Leaping headfirst out of a plane seems like a really bad idea, so it might be worth a brief explanation as to why this was done.
 * Briefly added: "The danger of fouling the static lines also required that German paratroopers lept headfirst from their aircraft, and so were trained to land on all fours ...


 * I notice the infobox only gives 20 May as the date, but the battle seems to have drawn out for longer; maybe use a date range in the infobox?
 * Very odd. Thank you. Fixed.

That's it from me, expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 18:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks HF. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)