Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:30, 17 October 2009.

Battle of Villers-Bocage

 * Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i believe it meets the FA criteria.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Citation / Sourcing issues per applicable project WP:MILMOS Fifelfoo (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * War Diaries for 4rd County of London Yeomanry September 1939 To July 1944 No provenance data on sourcing.  warlinks.com isn't the archive of the UK.  Full citation required.
 * The website is only hosting the war diary and have nothing to do with it otherwise; what further details are needed?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a primary source without provenance. War Diaries tend to be held by the military organisation responsible, national archives, or published by either previous, or a third party respectable publisher.  Published in that format it is not credible that the content is the War Diary. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it does present such a problem it can be simply removed, along with the partial sentance it supports, to the external sources.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * incorrect citation type, if you're citing the entire issue, it would generally be a feature issue with a title. Where's the location of the magazine publication?  Its not a journal, so it requires a higher level of citation (Publisher's location, for example).  Why aren't you citing the article of interest?  See also the citation "^ After The Battle Magazine 132, p. 34"  This is part of an authored article, no?
 * I dont understand how this is an "incorrect citation type"? It is the same as used for any other published source, this one just happens to be a magazine. The relevent issue and page number has been provided so why is there need for section name within the magazine? To note i do not own the magazine it was added by other contributors. Likewise i am uncertain why this one source needs publication locations while the others do not?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Magazines are not identical to books, are require a different citation standard. Academic journals keep one name for a long time, and do not require publication location information.  Popular magazines, as constantly in flux, require clear indication of the publishing group and that group's location.  When a magazine does not have Authors, it is more typical to cite the relevant articles "Article" Magazine. Location: Publisher, Pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. I will contact the relevent person and see if they respond, however they do not often contribute to the project. Do you know where i will find the required template?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The query has been sent to the contributor but i do not know if and when he will get back to me.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hope it helps, and I think it's all right - sources here and here. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, i have adjusted the article accordingly. hopefully it should now suffice.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delaforce, Patrick (2003) [1999]. Churchill's Desert Rats: From Normandy to Berlin with the 7th Armoured Division. Sutton Publishing Ltd; New edition edition. ISBN 0-75093-198-1. word duplication "Edition"
 * Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ^ a b c The Sharpshooter Newsletter 2003, p. 18 Not in bibliography
 * It is already listed: The Sharpshooters Yeomanry Association. "The Sharpshooter Newsletters". http://www.sharpshooters.org.uk/Newsletter/Newsletters. Retrieved 2008-04-01
 * Incorrect citation: plurals. Is this a sole authored newsletter, if not, article name and author?  Publication location and publisher please.Fifelfoo (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed for you. As an association newsletter, it should really include the contact point for the association as the location.  Given you're only citing the 2003 issue, its fixed, and set to the article in question.Fifelfoo (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ^ 4CLY War Diary Not in bibliography.
 * Likewise this is already listed, however i have reworded the inline citation to make it more clear.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Why didn't this go through WikiProject_Military_history A class first? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Several of us have worked on multiple articles and have nailed down pretty well what we need for an FA class article. I believe this article is at that, or pretty close to that, state; enough not to warrant moving through, imo, an unneeded level of bureaucracy in this case.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review:
 * File:VB Sitrap.jpg has a fair use rationale and a free license; one of these must be wrong.
 * File:VBTiger.jpg is the same.
 * Others seem fine. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the free license tag, they were added when i orignally uploaded them due to myself misunderstanding the process. All that is left is the fair use rationale so am unsure if this issue is now sorted or not.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the images fail WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through that article and the available templates, it would appear the Template:Non-free 2D art would be the correct one to use; do you concur?
 * That would seem fine. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * I can only say, see the above discussion...--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the above has to do with this. You need to either use all the family or all the  family. Citation uses different formatting than the cite family does, and mixing them gives inconsistent formatting between citations. I don't care which is used, but they need to not be mixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well i used one way of formatting the inline cites and the for the reference section - the same ones ive used for other articles i have worked on. However in the above discussion Stifle raised that the newsletter and magazine should be formatted differently.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "War Diaries..." lacks publisher, author, publisher and last access date. What makes this a reliable source?
 * I can provide the access date but there is no publisher information just a website that has uploaded the transcript. No information is provided to who within the regiment was responsible for keeping the diary up to date so the author would only be the regiment itself.
 * As for is it being a relibale source or not; it is only used to provide supplement information to a modern published source. It claims to be the war diary and adds an air of authencity to it by the use of the correct equipment, placing the battle in question on the right date, stating the correct commanding officer and noting a new CO the following month after the former was captured, talks about equipment this regiment used i.e. Cromwell tanks over the more popular Shermans etc
 * But as stated above, if it will provide too much of a problem i have no problem relegating it to the external links and removing the few words it supports.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say you need to remove it, if you can't show who was behind it. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ill remove it now then.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I'd bin that sketched image now. Please revert the green map I enlarged if you don't like it. I can still barely read the text on it. Is it your map? If so, the text could be enlarged. Camouflaged tank image could be on the right and larger—the interest is in the guys and the camouflage, and I need a magnifying glass to see anything. Tony  (talk)  10:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not happy yet with the prose. Here are examples from the top.
 * Remove both commas from the opening sentence.
 * Long snake: "Although the British reached the town and a nearby ridge, the unexpected presence of strong German armoured forces caused considerable disruption, and having first abandoned Villers-Bocage under pressure of German counterattacks, the division was ultimately withdrawn." And I'm wobbly on why you say they reached the occupied town and a nearby ridge; what was the significance of the ridge? Were the German soldiers on the ridge too? The lead should avoid readers' having to ponder these questions, even if they're explained eventually in the body of the article.
 * "hotly-contested battle". Please see the MoS on hyphens. And is there a better word that "hotly"? "Fiercely"? But your "embroiled" seems to do it anyway.
 * Paras one and two both start with "intended to", "aimed to"; then there's "in an attempt to" and yet another "intended to". There's a lot of dithering? Just checking that this is OK. It leaves open whether this was actually done.
 * Can "Meanwhile" be binned? I think it works without.
 * Query what "attributable" to Wittman means. Tony   (talk)  10:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a second ce pass, and others have tweaked things too. Hopefully the prose is generally clearer and tighter now. Any dithering still in the text is pretty much intentional; much of the battle can be summed up in "the best laid plans of mice and men..." :) Re the map, it's one of mine. I suppose could increase some of the smaller text, but I think it might then run the risk of overcrowding. What do you think? EyeSerene talk 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have enlarged the sketch map as requested however using the same parameters we used in the Charnwood article appear to not make much of a difference. To be fair however the image of the tank hidden, the intrest is on the hidden tank not the men and the focus and size of the image reflects this.
 * Was a change made in the MOS regarding the size of images bar maps etc ?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead is far too long. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    00:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's perhaps longer than average, but it's a long article :) The lead follows the pattern of para 1: broad overview; subsequent paras: summary of article content. It's difficult to see what could be cut without reducing context to an extent that will leave the reader wondering. If you have any suggestions though, they'd be welcome. EyeSerene talk 07:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.