Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques/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 Ian Rose 13:04, 18 December 2012.

Blockhaus d'Éperlecques

 * Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the second of three related articles (the other two are Fortress of Mimoyecques and La Coupole) that I will be nominating for featured status. The latter article achieved this status in September (see Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1). Next March is the 70th anniversary of the start of construction of the three sites described in these articles and I envisage running a triple Today's Featured Article covering all three articles (see User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb). In advance of that, I'm nominating this article, which is already a Good Article, for consideration as a Featured Article. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Current status


 * Support
 * Nick-D
 * Dank
 * Giants2008


 * Oppose

n/a


 * Comments only
 * SandyGeorgia

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I'm always a fan of potential FAs which feature photos and graphics created by the nominator. I have the following comments and suggestions:
 * "He suggested that the missile should be launched from heavily defended fixed sites, constructed in a similar fashion to the massive submarine pens then under construction in occupied France and Norway, where the rockets could be stored, armed, fueled from an on-site LOX production plant and launched." - this is a bit of a complex sentence - I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences
 * I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was given the codename" - this might be better described as a 'cover name'
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the source for the information in the File:Watten site diagram.png diagram?
 * Several places. I created the image myself in Inkscape. The source information is a mixture of ex-Crown Copyright material from the UK National Archives, display material at the site itself and material from a number of books (all of which presumably draw on the original site plans at the National Archives). Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you identify these sources in the image file? Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "and construction plans were presented to Hitler on 25 March 1943, who immediately gave the go-ahead for the project to begin" - this should be split into a separate sentence
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Were the German specialist workers treated harshly as the current wording suggests?
 * Actually I haven't found any info about how the Germans were treated, but I'd imagine not - the sources all speak about harsh treatment of the non-German workers. The wording was a bit ambiguous so I've clarified it. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "falling ill or being unable to work through injury was the equivalent of a death sentence, as they would either be left to die or be transported back to the concentration camps from which they had been brought" - is this correct for all the foreign workers? (and were they prisoners of war as stated?) While the Germans worked Soviet POWs to death and held them in severe conditions, their treatment of POWs from other nationalities was generally OK until the closing months of the war (though Italians were often treated badly after 1943). Civilians forcibly conscripted from these countries were often treated in the way you describe, so the use of POW might not be correct here (or it could be an early example of the Germans mistreating POWs I wasn't aware of).
 * According to the sources, they were indeed POWs - basically just used as slave labour. There is quite an extensive display about it at the site. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * On a related topic, are there any estimates of the number of prisoners who died during the construction process, and was anyone prosecuted for the harsh treatment of the workers after the war?
 * No idea, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "A large dump was established at Watten next to the River Aa, which was eventually used for stores for all the V-weapon sites in the Saint-Omer area. " - this is a bit awkward (how about A large dump was established at Watten next to the River Aa, which was eventually used to store material required for all the V-weapon sites in the Saint-Omer area"? - which I suspect could also be improved upon).
 * Reworded. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "At the end of May, the British Chiefs of Staff instructed General Eisenhower to organise aerial attacks on the sites." - this can't be correct as Ike was still in the Mediterranean at the time (he also didn't gain control over the strategic bombers until the lead-up to D-Day)
 * OK, I've reworded this to say simply that they ordered attacks to begin against the sites. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The last sentences of the paragraph which begins with "The Germans' main focus of attention switched instead to Wizernes" need a reference
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "and nothing could be determined about how well it had penetrated the concrete" - this is a bit awkward
 * Reworded. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Do we know why the French and British inspected the facility in 1951?
 * Yes, the article already says why: "to determine whether it was capable of being reused for military purposes." Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but why the interest in this topic in 1951? Were the British still worried about the French potentially reactivating German V-weapon sites, or were they assessing them for use by NATO forces? Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "It was left to lie fallow" - I don't think that the agricultural term 'lie fallow' is an appropriate term to apply to a large concrete bunker!
 * Fair point! Reworded. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "In 2009, the museum welcomed 45,000 visitors" - are more recent figures available? (probably not)
 * Afraid not... (or at least I don't have them). Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "RAF 11 Group" - this should be No. 11 Group RAF
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'Air raids on the Watten site' contains a bit of over-linking Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I've raised a couple of issues above, but both of them are of a minor nature and aren't a barrier to the promotion of this fine article. As noted in my initial comments, great work with the high quality self-created photos and images as well as the high quality text. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * "Dornberger's staff subsequently decided to continue minor construction at Watten "for deception purposes". The site itself was now useless, as the Germans recognised when they wryly codenamed it Concrete Lump, and the liquid oxygen generators and machinery were transferred to the Mittelwerk V-2 factory in Germany, well away from Allied bombers" - source?
 * I'm guessing you were looking at it while I was editing it in response to Nick's comments - I've added a source now. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FN4: don't need italics on quote
 * We probably don't need the quote either to be honest - I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Fn10: formatting
 * Not sure which one you're referring to here? Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Current footnote 10, which appears to double the magazine title. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. I know it looks confusing, but the publisher of After the Battle is actually called After the Battle Magazine. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FN44: italics on magazine name
 * Done.


 * Where is Esslingan?
 * That was a typo - it should have been Esslingen. Now corrected. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names, and whether you use "DC" or "D.C."
 * I think I've already abbreviated all the state names - I didn't see any unabbreviated ones when I looked just now. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, still have Florida for Air Proving Ground Command Eglin Field, abbreviated elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. I've abbreviated this now. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Missisagua" - do you mean Mississauga? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - another typo I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Whole lotta sentences starting with unnecessary "howevers"; even paragraphs. See here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I reworded two and left two. There are 17 howevers on the WP:MOS page, not counting the subsection on however, which mirrors my experience: I don't think we're going to get people to abandon them entirely. But I'll remember to give them a closer look and reword when there's a case to be made that "however" is either inappropriate or too strong. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this last night, in case it helps. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments – I went through the entire article and found it to be an interesting read. There were a few issues that I detail below, but nothing major. If they can be taken care of, I'm likely to offer support.
 * Ref 5 could be moved outside the parenthesis, like ref 6 is.
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Construction: The Organisation Todt link should probably be moved up a couple of sentences, to where it first appears in the text.
 * I'm a bit confused by this; the first link to the OT appears in its first mention in the body text. Or have I missed something?
 * There is a usage in the first sentence of this section, and the link appeared in the third sentence. I fixed it myself, so don't worry about it. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that "The living conditions were appalling" sounds like we are giving our own opinion on the issue, even though I'm sure it's true. The language could be made more moderate while keeping the main point intact.
 * How about "extremely harsh"? Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Em dash in the next sentence ought to be a smaller en dash instead, or you may want to make the dash unspaced. I'm surprised this wasn't caught earlier in the process.
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Discovery, destruction and abandonment: You don't need two Chiefs of Staff Committee links in three sentences here.
 * True, fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw both links still in the article, but took the second one out. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "On August 6, Sandys also...". I notice that Sandys' first name is given in the next section, but not here. It should be the other way around.
 * Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Air raids on the Watten site, 19 March 1944: What is the 1. doing after the colon?
 * No idea, I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 16/17 June 1944: Period before ref 58 should be a comma instead. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Prioryman (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – After taking care of the last couple of things I saw, I think this deserves the star. As far as I can see, it meets all of the FA requirements. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


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