Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive2


 * 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 00:34, 12 December 2009.

Battle of Villers-Bocage

 * Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article meets all criteria, previous review did not flag up any major issues; the minor issues it did flag up have since been sorted out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Eubulides' alt text clearance and Awadewit image clearance moved to talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I largely approve of the nicely written article. However I want to recommend an expansion or counter balance of some of the elements in the article. Especially since the article states that the German propaganda exploited the battle. I therefore have checked what the Wehrmachtbericht reports about the battle at Villers Bocage. Interestingly I find it very moderate in comparison to what is stated in the article. It reads on 14 June 1944

In der Normandie stieß eine gepanzerte Kampfgruppe in den feindlichen Brückenkopf östlich der Orne vor und brachte dem Gegner hohe Verluste an Menschen und Material bei.

My translation An armoured battle group attacked the enemy bridgehead east of the Orne in the Normandy and caused the enemy high numbers of casualties in men and material.


 * Taylor claims that it was Signal magazine in which doctored photographs appeared giving a larger sense of the destruction. On top of which Wittmann's account of the battle is also translated and presented in Taylor's work. Wittmann does give a bit of an over the top description and then clearly states that two battalions had been practically wiped out. The above from Wehrmachtbericht only appears to further support the article; however are you sure it is about the Villers-Bocage battle? V-B is west of the Orne and the Germans were reacting to the British move in this battle. 21st Panzer was operating east of the river and had launched numerous attacks on the 51st Infantry causing heavy casualties iirc thats why they could take no further role in Operation Perch.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Too be honest I am not sure, but this was the only reference I found about a battle in the vicinity of Villers Bocage at the timeframe in question. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just add that part of the point of that section is not so much that German propaganda exploited the battle - both the Axis and Allies did plenty of that, though the doctored photographs are an interesting nugget - but that the propaganda was given so much credence by the British both at the time and by professional historians for years afterwards. I think that's what makes it notable enough to be worth examining in such detail. EyeSerene talk 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly I also miss references from the German point of view such as
 * Agte, Patrick (2000). Michael Wittmann erfolgreichster Panzerkommandant im Zweiten Weltkrieg und die Tiger der Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Preußisch Oldendorf. ISBN 3-920-72218-3.

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I started reading Agte and the general story matches the article. I could add a lot more information on the prelude to the battle from the German side as well as how the chain of events evolved in detail from the German side, especially on 1st Company SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101. Let me know if this is wanted. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left some comments on the article's discussion page in regards to the information jsut added by yourself - would be very much appreiacted if you could respond there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As i have no access to this book nor do i read German, could you suggest what particular passages you are referring to that you feel should be added? The article may come off slightly Anglo-centric however we have tried to give an equal ammount of space to both points of view; it is largely determined by non-bais secondary sources, i.e. Taylor's work is mostly based off the reels of photographs taken by the Germans following the battle (quite a few we have used within the aritcle).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't get the impression that I want to rewrite history or that I want to contradict what is stated in the article. I have Atge's book and I will reread his position on the encounter. If I find something worth presenting I let you know and you can add at your own discretion. I only feel that looking at both sides of the coin makes an article more interesting and I somehow expect this from an FAC article (I know this isn't a requirement but makes for a good reading). MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * You have Miles Dempsey as a General but he was not promoted to that rank until 1946.
 * Excellent catch, i have corrected this mistake.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we need to have two descriptions of the battle in the introduction? It's kind of confusing.
 * I believe this is written per MOS:BEGIN; the first paragraph gives a potted summary and defines the scope of the article, and the following paragraphs expand on the first. However, I've trimmed some extraneous information and tried to make things clearer. EyeSerene talk 10:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tentative Oppose (1a–b) for now.
 * This is a serious problem with all MilHist articles, but considering they are coming to FAC I feel justified in screeching about it here. The opening sentences on are utterly impenetrable for those who aren't war buffs. To be fair, the opening sentence actually describes what war it's from, which is better than most, but casual readers won't really know about "Operation Perch and the wider Battle of Normandy". Some description of what the whole point of the battle/operation was would be useful. It's strange that some of this important backstory isn't explained until the second paragraph of the lead.
 * Basically, I think that most of the article should be bare minimum understandable without having to navigate away from the page; most readers don't have the insanely useful popups, so you're essentially killing the article's flow by forcing them to divert their attention; it's certainly not compelling or brilliant. Examples of a bit that should be explained in the lead: "It was hoped this flanking manoeuvre would force the German Panzerlehrdivision to fall back" (by the way, who hoped this?). After the background and lead, there's less of an issue.
 * The lead and the background section of the body do not explain what D-Day was
 * The article has many curly quotes (’) which should be replaced with straightquotes (WP:MOS)
 * Considering the article is written in BrEng, shouldn't the measurements be in metric, converted to miles? Not sure if this is covered by WP:ENGVAR or any part of the MoS, just a bit that stuck out when reading.
 * What does "knocked out" mean in relation to these tank images? Disabled? You can't really "knock out" an unthinking piece of machinery. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reviewing the article. We'll get to work, and ping you when we think your comments have been addressed (if you don't mind). All the best, EyeSerene talk 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to say thanks for the review and that last point really made me laugh; it has never been something i have thought of. To me it makes complete sense because i have been reading about this stuff for years but to an outsider; a very valid point.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, in response to the review:
 * I've been through the the lede and background sections; hopefully they are less impenetrable to non-specialists now.
 * I can't find any curly quotes. Might this be a browser rendering issue?
 * In the UK variety of BrEng we normally use miles. We're officially metric, but in practice often in name only :)
 * Thinking further on "knocked out", you're right that it seems incongruous (and perhaps even colloquial), but it is a standard phrase for the disablement/destruction of an armoured vehicle. It covers everything from slight damage that immobilises the vehicle (eg knocking a track off) to complete catastrophic destruction. Unfortunately, because the references use the term too, if we were to replace it we'd need specific information - I'm not sure from where - on exactly what damage the tanks suffered. The article does over-use the term, but I can't think of anything synonymous. Perhaps you have a suggestion or two? EyeSerene talk 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some additional changes to make a few things clearer to me, you should check them.
 * They were there :)... I believe got them all
 * You confusing bastards!
 * It's ironic because I popped open a war atlas randomly while browsing at my library and the second page I turned to used the term as well :) Perhaps we can have a little annotation on its first use, in text or in the footnotes, that explains what it means/range of damage it encompasses?

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really helpful, thank you. I've hope you don't mind my minor alterations to your text; "armoured Panzerlehrdivision" sounds a little odd, so I changed it to Panzer Lehr armoured division (purists may object, but I think we can get away with it!) I also added a little explanatory text to the first mention of PzLehr in the Background section to note that it was an unusually powerful formation.
 * You're right - I found them when I looked at the previous version with the page zoomed in. For some reason that's what the apostrophe key on my keyboard always produces. Not sure why :(
 * Heh, very true. We buy beer in pints and petrol in gallons or litres, but soft drinks in litres only; quote stones and pounds for bodyweight but kilos for most other weights; use miles for long distances, metres or yards for medium distances, and mainly cm/mm for short ones apart from when we use inches...
 * Good idea. I've written a definition into wiktionary and linked to that on the first use in the main text. Is that sufficient?
 * EyeSerene talk 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer readers did not have to navigate away, but I suppose that's good enough. I'll take another look at the article later today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point. I've tried a footnote instead - better? EyeSerene talk 10:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support
 * Should it be "on" or "at" Point 213? I started changing them to "at" and then wondered if it was a BE thing.
 * Please add publication locations to the references.


 * What makes this a reliable source?


 * The only thing holding up my support is the point raised by - has he been able to identify any missing information from the German sources? After this issue has been resolved, I will be happy to fully support.

Oh, and can the map points please be changed to little Risk armies? :) Awadewit (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My view is "on", probably. It could well be a BE thing; generally we'd say "I'm at the beach" meaning we'd arrived but were still in the car, but "on the beach" if we were actually getting sand in our socks (though they can be used interchangeably in some contexts). Point 213 is basically a hill, so "on" would seem to fit. It's not important though :)
 * Will do
 * The site is run by Niklas Zetterling, an established German military historian.
 * Not sure about MisterBee; will drop him a note
 * Which map would this be for?
 * EyeSerene talk 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The map thing was a little joke. All of the jokes I told yesterday failed. Every single one. :( Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had actually started thinking about how to draw the figures and looking for appropriate tank models... :P EyeSerene talk 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm having some difficulty with the Location thing for the refs; Amazon, Worldcat, Barnes & Noble etc don't seem to have the information either. Is this an FA-blocker? Also, the ISBN for "Gill, Ronald; Groves, John (2006) [1946]. Club Route in Europe: The History of 30 Corps from D-Day to May 1945. MLRS Books. ISBN 978-1-90569-624-6." doesn't return any result... typo maybe? EyeSerene talk 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think publication locations are very important. To give just one example why, my library requires them for interlibrary loan requests. I can look up some of these books later and see what I can find. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My version of WorldCat has publication locations. I'm adding them now. Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added what I could. Some of the citations are not totally clear. For example, the ISBN number does not correspond to the edition of the book listed for some of them, so I could not add the location. In others, the date of publication is unclear. Anyway, someone else will have to add the rest. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just edit conflicted with you when typing this rely... what are the chances? Anyway, thank you so much :) Surely we should have the same version of Worldcat though? I only found one - I can't remember for which book - and that said "Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York"... which seemed nonsensical. I guess I just don't have the touch :P EyeSerene talk 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get the WorldCat thing at all. "Oxford, New York" means it was published in both cities. Most times we just use the first city in the citation. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well that makes more sense now anyway :) EyeSerene talk 19:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed this convo; the info added for the above mentioned books comes from the publisher's website, if that is any help.
 * A Short History of 30 Corps in the European Campaign
 * The ISBN matches, i have only edited the layout; maybe this is the mistake? Their version: 978-1-905696-24-6 to mine: 978-1-90569-624-6; i moved the dash.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ' Comments Support' Forgot to do this earlier! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good read and nicely laid out article, but I’ve got a couple of queries (and a few opinions!), some of which are bigger than others :-)


 * Infobox and casualties section: As per the discussion we’ve had on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (which seems to have died without consensus unfortunately) I’d prefer to see the details of casualties in the main text rather than a footnote.  Given that the article makes mention of details such as the Battle honours and awards, I’d have thought the dead and wounded warranted inclusion.
 * Sources contridct one another on the state of casualties; with current sources it is impossible to break it down.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guessed that from the notes, but I still think that 4 notes containing a lot of info could be rewritten to create a "Casualties and losses" section in the main text, even if some sources do contradict each other. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will reconsult my sources and see what i can do tonight; although i dont have access to the Rifle Brigade book no more so i cant double check if he provided more detailed info rather than a total.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuity: This image in the “Afternoon battle” section is taken after the bombing raids I believe. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the caption or the image moved below to avoid confusion?
 * Addressed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PanzerLehr: Perhaps because of the comments above, PanzerLehr seems to be referred to in two different ways in the lede and background now. Personally for consistency I’d keep the name standardised, but that’s just my opinion.
 * What differences are you talking about? The use of the full correct name: Panzerlehrdivision, followed by the removal of division in other instances? It seems across various author's work i have read there is no real consistency on what to call the division when removing division from the name: Panzer Lehr, Panzerlehr or Panzer-Lehr seem to be the most common ones.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the names are all acceptable, but I realise its been done in the lede to clarify the type of division without repeating division to many times. I was just thinking of consistency, but it isn't important. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting to use just Panzerlehrdiivsion throughout the article?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For consistency, yes. But as I said it isn't important and I can see why it's been done in the lede. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Analysis: The very last paragraph of this section, dealing with commander’s dismissal, might be more appropriate in the aftermath section.
 * Addressed; meant to note this the other day but forgot :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wittmann: Every account I’ve read about Villers Bocage has Wittmann returning to the village in the afternoon attack, and this is the occasion on which his tank is knocked out (Beevor, Max Hastings, Panzers in Normandy: Then and Now, (and d’Este at first glance).  Panzers in Normady even identifies the Tiger in the image in “Afternoon battle” as Wittmann’s from memory).  I see from the talk page archive that there has been some (lengthy) discussion about whether he did or not.  If he didn’t, as the article states, perhaps it is worthy of a substantial note explaining why this article seemingly contradicts these books, rather than just a sentence and ref saying he took no further part in the battle.
 * Hope it helps, sorry to increase the workload! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article contradicts these books because they are wrong :p I can't even start to describe just how wrong Beevor and D'Este are :D
 * At any rate i will write up a note; i do not have Hasting (I can only get snippet views from Google books - Wittman from the 501st hehe) or Panzers in Normandy (no preview available); could you provide what they state?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note added.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly the sort of thing I was thinking! My books are in a state of flux at the moment while I move home, but gimme a couple of days.  Panzers in Normandy is a library book, but I recall it devotes a lot of pages to VB. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should be able to access a library copy of this book sometime next week if you are unable to get back in touch prior to that.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the Hastings position and ce'd the note slightly. Only one point: the quote uses "wisked", which is normally spelt "whisked". Is this a direct quote (therefore needing a [sic]) or a typo?  EyeSerene talk 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, beat me to it. Panzers in Normandy, on my lap at the moment, dedicates 12 pages to VB and does as I thought identify the tiger as Wittmann's.  It too claims that after entering VB the first time, he drove on to A sqn near point 213 and obliterated them.  Then in the arvo, after refueling and rearming he returned to VB, where his tank was knocked out by an AT gun.  To be honest though, this book is more about identifying the locations of period photos and less about the exact events...  The description of battle is very similar to Hastings.  I'm not sure its worth including it in the note because it isn't used in the rest of this article.  The texts that are used in the rest of the article that do contradict the sequence of events (as described here) are now explained which is more than satisfactory. As for the typo, personally, I'd offer Taylor the favour and correct him! Ranger Steve (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected the typo, though it still needs double-checking :) EyeSerene talk 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Typo on my part chaps!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Casualty section added and notes removed from infobox.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Absolutely brilliant detail, nice one! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed: EngimaMcmxc and MisterBee, how long do you think you need to go through the alternate source and satisfy the comprehensiveness concerns? If it is more than a few days, I suggest that the nomination be closed for now and reopened when you are satisfied. If it will be a very short process, I'll leave the nomination open for now. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned the article is ready now – it is mostly comprised of sources that utilise both British and German records, plus the two main sources are as far as I am aware the most modern sources on the battle – the only modern source that has not been used that much is the 2004 French book that I only have snippets of. Anything else is a bonus.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear from MisterBee in particular, as s/he was the one to raise the issue in the first place. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to report that I am still reading Agte. I tried limiting myself to the respective chapters dealing with Villers-Bocage and ended up starting in the beginning. Note: Agte is the only book I own pertaining to this battle and the SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101. So I am not an authority on the subject. One more thing that doesn't align right now are two pictures on Wikimedia File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-299-1804-07, Nordfrankreich, Panzer VI (Tiger I).jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-299-1804-11, Nordfrankreich, Panzer VI (Tiger I).jpg which Agte dates between June 6th and the battle at Villers-Bocage. According to Agte they are en route to the engagement while Wikimedia dates them on 21 March 1944. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. A spot-check in the "Background" section reveals opaque, unclear writing. The authors appear to know the topic so well that they're unable to empathise with readers who are new to it. We have to work too hard to determine the action, whereas it should be a good, enjoyable read, crystal clear and vivid. This is a great opportunity missed. Needs an independent copy-edit (quite a job, I think). PS Some of those excellent images are completely wasted by being so tiny. Why bother inserting them at all. Image sizes need a thorough audit. Please see this for how to upsize them:
 * "Spearheading the thrust intended to sweep around the eastern side of Caen, the 51st (Highland) Infantry Division soon ran into difficulty." Bit odd. Does it need "that was" before "intended"?
 * "Stiff and continued resistance from the 21st Panzer Division prevented the Highlanders from making anything more more than minor gains, and the next day their attack was called off." Gonna fix the double word? "Stiff and continued" is odd ... continued from what? Whose attack: that of the 21st or the Highlanders?
 * "the envelopment's western arm"—the envelopment? Not idiomatic; bizarre, actually.
 * "Newly-arrived"—see User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style
 * "However, on XXX Corps's right flank, a potentially favourable situation was developing." Could be smoother without one comma: "However, a potentially favourable situation was developing on XXX Corps's right flank." And remove comma before "and having received"? "few replacements for its losses" (neater?).
 * "It withdrew south" ... the whole article needs an audit for fuzzy back-references: what does "it" refer to? Also, I'm having trouble visualising what is going on: "It withdrew south, and the destruction of five German battle groups, including LXXXXIV Corps's reserves,[31] opened up a 7.5-mile (12.1 km) gap in the German lines between the United States V Corps and XXX Corps." Does the destruction happen because of the withdrawal south? Using "and" as a connector doesn't explain the logic or causality.
 * "Conscious of the opportunity presented"—What opportunity? It's opaque; the readers have to work too hard to fathom what is happening. Tony   (talk)  13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Imagine sizes are within wiki guidelines, however noting the default size will soon be increase to 220px i have increased the sizes to this. I have also increased the size of a few imagines above this default to 250 as beyond that they seem to big and impose on the text imo.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your image sizing changes had been reverted, so I've redone them. EyeSerene talk 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style. Tony  (talk)  13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC) PPS The WikiProject Copy-editing essentials: WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Copy-editing_essentials. Tony  (talk)  13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I don't edit the article, I'm afraid I have to disagree with a little of what you've said. I agree that perhaps the fourth sentence of the second paragraph in "background" is complex and could perhaps be broken down a little to make it clearer.  So too could the last sentence which rather suddenly mentions 5 battlegroups.  However, I'd have said what 'it' is, is pretty clear from the previous sentence, as is the opportunity mentioned in the next paragraph.  I agree that sometimes articles can be far too complex for their own good, relying on some understanding of the subject matter in advance.  But I think this article presents the background (and indeed the event) in a fairly clear fashion, which is especially enhanced by the map.  Yes, perhaps there is some complexity, but one can't really have detail of the sort contained here without it.  I suspect if it was toned down much more it would require removing detail, and then attract criticism for not explaining things enough! Perhaps another quick c/e to remove some complex strategy, but I think this is a minor quibble that can be easily corrected.  Just my own opinion and not an attempt to slight yours in any way Tony. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Tony and Ranger Steve for your comments. I believe the explanation is sufficiently clear, but I do see Tony's points and he's certainly right that I'm close to the article and familiar with the subject. Enigma has asked around for an independent copyedit; I think Maralia is already on the job, and thanks too for your offer Steve; please feel free :) EyeSerene talk 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * In notes but not refs: Marie, Trew, Williams.... eh, while you're at it you may wanna cross-check your notes that are drawn from the "Sharpshooter" against the titles in (and number of) Sharpshooter refs. They don't seem to be the same to me... errm, "Villers-Bocage Revisited" is attributed to Taylor in the notes but not the refs; is it the same Taylor as the "lens"? I would just double-check all of your cites and refs to periodicals...
 * I will double check the Sharpshooter refs today but am not sure what your entirely on about with the first part of your comment; what do you mean by "In notes but not refs: Marie, Trew, Williams.... eh"? If this in reference to how the footnotes are displayed, these re in line with Citing sources. Regards--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are three citations&mdash;Marie, Trew, and Williams&mdash;that appear in the footnotes, but there is no corresponding book listed in the References or Bibliography section.
 * I have just double checked the Sharpshooter and After the Battle Refs, they are correct; they are articles and magzines with the various mentioned people who have wrote sections of them. This was initially brought up here: Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive1 and these particular footnotes were changed by the same user who brought them up iirc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll look again tomorrow.
 * Hi, I have added the missing Trew and William books and i have also adjusted the Henri Marie one - it was the wrong way round.
 * As for the After the Battle; Daniel Taylor is not the author. He wrote an article that appeared in the After the Battle Magazine published by After the Battle. Is this the correct way of displaying this, as it is now?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a sprinkling punctuation probs, and beginning to worry about the prose.. Moreover, the "Casualties" is a confusing jumble of conflicting figures. IMO a table would make things oh-so-much more clear, but other may think a table would uglify the article.
 * I don't like the end of the analysis section. The "Despite these probs" bit seems like a stab at NPOV that comes off pale and weak (and even given that, perhaps a bit too much). It is immediately contered by more bad news in the same paragraph. I think we need to get a better grasp of the degree of success and failure (so to speak) of the action for both sides. I don't want more NPOV; if anything, I want a little less. Are those "good aspects" discussed in the "Despite this" bit really important and meaningful, or are they just minor aspects of the whole? Etc. Thoughts? Essentially what I'm saying here is that after reading the section, I don't really know how good the good was, how bad the bad was, and who had more bad than good... &bull; Ling.Nut 13:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address you last with some rearrangement and other tweaks. The most important outcome - that due to the British failure the front line would now be fixed in front of Caen for the foreseeable future - now concludes that section. EyeSerene talk 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm just checking in; will say more in 1 or 2 hours. I was gonna log in and type "Leaning Oppose per 1a and WP:LEDE" because I really don't think the article (or the lede) does a good job of saying whether the battle had any strategic or tactical importance, and who won (if anyone), and by what degree, etc. Popular articles that I read seemed to think it was a decisive German victory. I dunno if that's true, but I do know this article left me wondering. And i saw something buried deep in the article that said the town was important (I did a small ce edit in that sentence), but I don't remember seeing that in the lede etc. But perhaps only a few additional sentences can rectify these problems, and so perhaps we have time to clear this all up satisfactorily without the need for an Oppose. &bull; Ling.Nut 00:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.