Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Vimy Ridge/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 promoted by Karanacs 16:40, 2 June 2009.

Battle of Vimy Ridge

 * Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the article, as it stands, is likely the best and most widely cited piece of work on the subject currently on the internet. As it stands, the article has involved over a year of research and review and cites 33 separate pieces of work, most of which are academically reviewed. It has been through GA, A-class level reviews as well as a peer review. Every attempt has been made to deliver a fair perspective of the battle, a difficult task with the cultural attachments Canada has made to the battle. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:29, 8 May 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. done
 * Current ref 108 (Gibbs..) has the author and publisher run into the link title. Please separate them out to match your other web links. done'
 * What makes http://www.durandgroup.org.uk/Vimy_Ridge.htm a reliable source?
 * The Durand Group is an archaeological and research group. They are an authority figure on First World War underground warfare and the principal authority for underground warfare at Vimy Ridge. Any source talking about underground warfare either makes reference to their work or have directly consulted them in producing it. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed your done templates to done as the use of graphics and templates is discouraged at FAC. (You can only put so many templates on a page before the page goes belly up... we've done it in the past.) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Reference 55 does not work (it does not go down to the proper book at the bottom of the page) done
 * Corrected Tucker citation, apparently the reference had not previously been included. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many of the ISBNs under "References" are not linked. Go through and link the ones that aren't. Mm40 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) done
 * I only found two with issues (Farr and Wynne refs). Don't believe any others lacking ISBNs have one and verified such through isbndb.com. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Ashworth in refs but not notes; ditto Ross. A much bigger problem is that four authors (Boire, Cook, Godefroy and Sheldon) have more than one book in the refs, but no attempt was made in the notes to specify which of the books by a given author was being cited. This absolutely must be fixed. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 13:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) done
 * Ashworth, Ross and the Sheldon/Cave have been removed. All citation already link to the proper book through the footnote inline links. I have nevertheless added the year and in the Godefroy case, year + a & b.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support
 * Non-breaking spaces missing between numbers and following text
 * I'm not putting nbsp after every number and following text, that's ridiculous. It's been done for distances, quantities in the millions and for time. I have not and will not go through the trouble of adding them for when it comes to qunatities (such as number of men, aircraft, squadrons, artillery pieces, ect) under one million, units or formation names or dates. It's a military article full of figures, there is going to be end-of-line displacement. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your call, however I think you'll find some folks may have a different opinion of this.


 * en-dash should be used for page number ranges
 * Done and done. It had been done earlier but looks like it got undone somewhere along the line. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Passive voice used in a number of places where active might be better largely complete completed
 * Examples please. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "formal assault plan was adopted..." done
 * "Canadian divisions were to be assembled "
 * "Canadian divisions were joined by the British " done
 * "once a salient of considerable German resistance was overcome" done
 * "Byng had been formally presented with orders" done
 * (+others)
 * Significant decrease in the number of passive voice examples, particularly those employing "was" or "were" and, to a lesser extent, "had". Those that seem to work best as passive voice have been left as such. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You should consider adding conversion templates for km distances done
 * "To logistically manage" = split infinitive; also a fragmented sentence that could probably be structured a little better done
 * Changed to: "The Canadian Corps was allocated three times the artillery normally assigned to a corps for regular operations.[5] To manage the logistics associated with the increased artillery, Royal Artillery staff officer Major Alan Brooke developed coordinated communication and transport plans to work in conjunction with the complex barrage plans" --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Artillery" section - too many sentences starting with "To..."? done
 * you are very right. I think this has now been largely corrected. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mines" is not linked in the article done
 * In the Background section, mines is not linked to Mining (military) and in the Underground operations section, underground warfare is linked to tunnel warfare. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Time should include a time zone no action needed
 * ahhh, I have never a) heard this request before or b) seen use of time zones in an FA class military article. I don't really see what the benefit is in including it. So unless required by a editorial consensus I am going to pass on action this item. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mentioned it because I saw this usage in another FAC recently, however I don't know if it's required so let's leave it at that.


 * "four hundred eighty", "one hundred thirty-eight" etc - use digits for numbers per WP:MOSNUM no action needed
 * As per WP:MOSNUM, adjacent quantities which are not comparable should usually be in different formats. one hundred thirty-eight 4.5 inch howitzers works better than 138 4.5 inch howitzers --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the aftermath, can the bullet points be phrased as text?
 * It will end up being a long sequence within a sentence and will certainly not read very well as plain text. Although I know MoS generally frowns on embedded lists, I believe the current presentation works a bit better. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should take another look at this.
 * I took another look at this and tried the edit in sandbox. In my view it doesn't work as clean readible text unless the units formation names is removed. This would be no big deal for the Canadian medal winners as I suspect the info is on their respective articles but it would be detremental for the German side. Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "A 250 acres portion..." - "A 250 acre portion..."? done
 * Since it’s an adjective “acre” (no "s") is correct. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed one more


 * What did the memorial cost to build in today's money (See the template)
 * No idea. I don't think the parameters of the inflation template were designed for such an example. Canadian government funds were allocated and spent over no less than an 11 year period and you can be certain the funds were not allocated in a straight-line fashion. Construction takes place over the Canadian Great Depression, a period that included both inflation and deflation. Calculating the inflation rate would certainly not be easy. There is no Canadian central bank until 1935 so if calculating through interest rates you'd have to find the historical interest rates from the Bank of Montreal (the gov't banker the time). If calculating via CPI which do you use, Canadian for French. There are too many fluctuating factors and unknowns for me to feel comfortable making this estimate. An accurate result would require primary research. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mutiple references should be consolidated, e.g. "Granatstein p. 113" done
 * I think that one was a fluke, didn't see any other than the Granatstein p. 113 --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Humphries pp. 73-76
 * Samuels pp. 200-202


 * Fragmented sentence
 * "The town of Thélus and, after overcoming considerable German resistance, the crest of the ridge fell during the second day" done
 * changed to: "The town of Thélus fell to the Canadian Corps during the second day of the attack, as did the crest of the ridge once a salient of considerable German resistance was overcome."


 * Split infinitive: "to properly apply" done
 * corrected --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Inconsistent use of past tense (e.g. "The Battle of Vimy Ridge was a military engagement fought as part of the Battle of Arras" vs "In May 1916, Byng had been formally presented with orders")
 * Consistent use of regional English (e.g. "recognized" vs "recognised"; "color" vs "colour")
 * This one is a continuous battle but I believe I have caught them all. Please review. done --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "totaling" vs "totalling" (totalling) done


 * You should take a look at the POV- the article is written from a Canadian perspective, with "the enemy" implicitly German in a number of locations. (i.e. The Canadians were the enemy too, from the German's perspective) done
 * Where relevant, I have gone through and replaced enemy with a nationality. Other suggestions?


 * Weasel words: "Often this belief is specifically anchored on the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge" done
 * Re-written, expanded and citation given. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Missing access dates for : "All of Vimy Ridge Cleared of Germans", "Official History of the Canadian Army...", "Here at Vimy..." done
 * Incomplete sentence: "However, only after they had run out of ammunition, mortars rounds and grenades." done
 * combined with previous sentence.


 * "Influence on Canada" - the wording in section needs some tightening up, as I feel it's too flowery for an encyclopedia. in progress done
 * I'm not sure that can be done, it's a cultural influence summary which essentially makes it a POV nightmare. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have re-written the section. I have done my best to improve its objectivity. I am welcome any suggestions you may have on improving this section. It's a tricky one. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Copyvio - the word-for-word unquoted text I found in the "Influence on Canada" section is a concern for me at the moment - are there any other parts of the text like this? done
 * Removed offending text. How would you suggest I proceed in replacing it or would that not be necessary. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is not over this sentence, which if duely quoted presents no problem, but rather that there may be other text like this elsewhere in the article. I don't know the history of who contributed what, but it might be worth checking the additions of the editor who added that text if it was not you.


 * "The main combatants were the Canadian Corps against three divisions of the German Sixth Army" - should you not state that 70,000 of the Canadian Corps was not Canadian? no action needed
 * It is indirectly stated in the Strategic planning section. The number of Canadians is noted rather than the number of non-Canadians --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've probably not explained myself very well - someone reading the introduction would not necessary be aware that only 58% of the Canadian Core was Canadian ("The main combatants were the Canadian Corps against three divisions of the German Sixth Army") i.e. it was not simply Canadian vs Germans. PS: Please don't strike out my comments.
 * My apologies, striking your comments was not meant to me malicious just organizational, I will stop doing so. I don't really see the percentage of Canadians in the corps being of central importance to the basic description of the battle. This being said, I have gone through the article and removed any reference to "Canadians" or "Canadian troops" and replaced them with "Canadian Corps" or appropriate unit/formation name to help remove any national possessiveness but I can't help that the name of the formation is the Canadian Corps.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The heavy preliminary artillery bombardments of the Canadian Corps ahead of their own offensive ultimately prevented the Germans from executing their pre-emptive attack" - I'm not sure in this sentence who did the bombing... done
 * shortened and simplified.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read that the attack was initially planned for Sun 8 April, but delayed for a day over concerns about the barbed wire not being cleared. Is there a way to incorporate this information?
 * I do believe the entire arras offensive was pushed by a day, but I don't know when that was decided or for what purpose. Most of the material I have been dealing with makes no mention of it though. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC) done
 * Take a look at the link in my comment above
 * The link offered no information as to why it was delayed or when that decision was taken. However, I have found an appropriate and will include citation and text in the April 9 section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you considered using this image of the memorial, which seems to fit better with the timeline and text in the article? done
 * It's a good image but it doesn't show the memorial as a whole. I'm not really of a strong opinion of one image or the other though and would not oppose an image change here. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is there no mention at all of Arthur Currie, who appears to have been involved closely with the French lectures about Verdun, the development of Canadian tactics used in the assault and who in 1917 became the first Canadian commander of the Canadian Corps? done
 * There was no particular reason for the omission. Some histories have sought to overemphasize Currie's involvement in the planning for some very obvious Canadian nationalistic purposes but that certainly isn't reason for omitting him either. I am working on incorporating additional points of information. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added Currie's influence in the developing the assault plan and his contribution via his post-Verdun lecture. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - in my view, this engaging and well-written article satisfies the FA criteria. I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness because this is not a subject I know much about. I have made a few minor edits to the prose,, please check that I have not introduced any errors of fact. Graham Colm Talk 14:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:
 * File:Vimy Ridge 1917-barrage map.jpg: from where comes the claim that this was by the 1st Field Survey Company, Royal Engineers and thus an Ordnance Survey map?
 * The map is marked as being produced by the 1st Field Survey Company, Royal Engineers on the bottom left by the Canadian Corps boundary line. Base maps were largely produced by the Ordnance Survey (OS). This being said, the supplementary work to the base map could make it a Canadian crown copyright issue. "British-Canadian Military Cartography on the Western Front, 1914-1918" by Jeffery Murray in Archivaria 26 (Summer 1988) offers some good detail on the history. So I would say, OS w/ Canadian crown copyright should about cover it. The source archive does not list any restrictions so I feel pretty safe is saying it's public domain. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt the 1st Field Survey Company is Canadian. The map, supplied to the Canadian Corps, is British work (OS and military)&mdash;hence UK Crown Copyright.  Marked as such.  Jappalang (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. To be honest I hadn't thought of the UK Crown copyright and you're right it would be more appropriate. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in public domain, the above might become a concern (note: the issue is regarding verifiability). Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Support - well written, well-sourced, and an excellent source of information. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.