Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Cobra


 * 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 Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009.

Operation Cobra

 * Nominator(s): Eurocopter (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all criteria and would worth promoting it to FA. The article passed an A-Class review within the Military history WikiProject last month. Since then, it undergone a thorough copyedit in order to be prepared for FAC. Eurocopter (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional support, provided that another reviewer (perhaps one of the MilHist people) can vouch for the content. Looks impressive. Prose is compelling.
 * "and the entire Normandy front soon followed suit" Wasn't quite sure what "followed suit" is referring to here.
 * 'wheeling round' Why is this in single quotes? Budding Journalist 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed according to your recomandations. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Made a few tweaks but otherwise enjoyed the reading the article very much. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support With a number of concerns:
 * Operation Cobra commenced on 25 July with a concentrated bombardment from thousands of Allied aircraft. – (Lede, second paragraph) When I think of "bombardment" I think of artillery, not aircraft. You should change this to "bombing".
 * "Rhino" modifications were made to some M4 Sherman and M5A1 Stuart tanks, and M10 Tank Destroyers – (Planning, fifth paragraph) Change the phrase "M10 Tank Destroyers" to "M10 Wolverine tank destroyers" (Note the lowercase "tank destroyers").
 * German positions to the east of Caen were shelled by 400 guns – (Operations Goodwood and Atlantic, first paragraph) Change "400 guns" to "400 artillery guns".
 * around 600 Allied fighter-bombers attacked strongpoints and enemy artillery along a 300-yard (270 m) wide strip of ground. – (Initial attack and breakthrough 25–27 July, first paragraph) Wherre was this strip of ground? You don't have to give a geographic location, you can just give it relative to the planned front line.
 * German tanks, supporting infantry and 88 mm guns, and VII Corps gained only 2,200 yards (2,000 m) during the rest of the day. – (Initial attack and breakthrough 25–27 July, second paragraph) Replace "and" with an em dash.
 * the entire Normandy front was now collapsing; a fact anticipated by the Allied command. – (Aftermath, second paragraph) When was this anticipated by Allied command? Presumably when they were planning the operation. I think you should include that, or leave out that bit altogether. If you dont' want to say when say "as anticipated by Allied command" instead.
 * All in all a great article, and one I much enjoyed reading. Patton t / c 12:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All done. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks.-- Patton t / c 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Request Upon closer inspection, you need to merge "Preliminary attacks" into the "Battle" section, and change the name ("Allied offencive" might be an idea). You need a "comparision of forces" section as well, with subsections ffor the allies and axis. I don't think I can support untill I see this done.-- Patton t / c 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The structure had been reorganized a bit and a Operation Cobra order of battle article has been created, with a link at the beginning of the Planning section. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think you should include a summary section like in Operation Winter Storm and Operation Uranus.-- Patton t / c 12:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Objection. With all due respect I think that's impossible - we have very little information regarding German units state and strength (we barely now all the units involved in the operation). All the details regarding the forces involved are incorporated in Planning and Battle sections, like in the FA sister articles Operation Epsom and Operation Tractable. The "Comparison of forces" section within Operation Uranus, is actually the Planning section of that article. Adding an additional Comparison of forces section in Operation Cobra would mean interference with and repetition of information already posted in the planning section. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine i see you have link tot he order of battle section.-- Patton t / c 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding :). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support recognicion-- Patton t / c 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Object The article has a number of errors and the comments above have introduced new ones. The Cobra operation was absolutely *not* expected to lead to a complete collapse of the German front in Normandy; several sources (Bradley, Zaloga, Weigley, D'Este, Blumenson) will substantiate that. The attack had a limited objective which was exceeded; that outcome was a surprise. "Bombardment" is perfectly acceptable terminology for aircraft bombing - consider the fact that USAAF bomber units were known as "Bombardment Wings" at one point, or see the wikipedia category "Bombardment units of the US Air Force". The M10 Tank Destroyer was never known as the Wolverine in US service, as discussed in that article. The term "M10 tank destroyer" is more accurate. The article as it stands is a good example of undue weight to minority points of view. For example, it credits Montgomery with the initial plan, a view shared by few authors (see the list above). Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply What we are stating in the article is that Cobra was a "breakout offensive". We never stated that Cobra was expected to lead to a complete collapse of the German front, but it eventually led to the collapse of the front (so the collapse of the front, was a result of Cobra). As we kindly explained you several times, it is not enough to make such snide comments, you have to make yourself the changes according to your sources - or perhaps you are expecting us to make the changes according to your POV? I'm afraid that's impossible, so if you really want to improve something within this article come up with detailed and sourced comments regarding what you consider errors, so we would compare them with our sources and find a middle way acceptable for everyone. Again, such comments do not help improve the article at all, and the sources always briefly mentioned by you are not necessary more reliable than ours (Hastings, Williams, Wilmot, Bercuson, Van der Vat, etc). --Eurocopter (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "snide" about my comments, which are based on reading the US official history, Bradley's memoirs, and other well-regarded sources. Kindly discuss edits, not editors. The article as it stands has some serious weaknesses. It meets the formal, structural requirements of wikipedia. But its dependence on weak sources makes it less accurate than it could be. My attempts to reintroduce better sources have been reverted and, although this seems the wrong place to debate that, this is a good reason to cast doubt on the article's fate as a potential featured article. Perhaps others familiar with US operations in Normandy can contribute better than I; I've long since lost patience with it. My apologies for that. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you state that the article has serious weaknesses, you have to mention them and come-up with sourced corrections (it is not enough to come and say "the article has serious weaknesses"). Your additions of sourced information were never reverted (as a proof, see the many citations existent throughout the article from the historians mentioned by you above). Stating that our sources are weak, is extremely POV considering that we used many of the most respectable WWII historians. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noted many of them on the talk page; your comment is disingenuous. The article as it stands fails to make use of the most important source (the US official history by Blumenson, which I have on order) but makes heavy use of lesser-quality sources. The sources you've used are clearly POV in that they given undue weight to minority positions that are not supported by the most highly-respected sources, and are flatly contradicted in some places by first-hand sources such as Bradley's own memoirs. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two months ago when you came-up with decent comments, we always adressed them and made efforts to compare/combine sources and post the most accurate facts. Let's not forget that you are the only one making such comments/claims, while we are at least five editors trying to contribute constructively. Your comments are always something like "Fascinating, well-sourced, and full of POV and accuracy problems.", completely inconstructive. If you really have something to object, mention the errors and post sources that will support your claims. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the US called them they are almost exclusivly known now as M10 wolverines.-- Patton t / c 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect - please consult the M10 article or any good reference on the vehicle. DMorpheus (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental problem with an article about a US operation that relies mostly on the heavily-criticized British official history, but is not based at all upon the US official history. Once I get my copy of Blumenson I will be editing the article more fundamentally, but for now it would be a travesty to elevate this article to FA. Kindly refrain from personal attacks. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heavily criticized by who? By you? Maybe US official history is a bit pro US, so the British one would be the most NPOV. As I said several times, if we compare sources and underline problems, we can improve something (I appreciate your edits/corrections made this evening in the article and agree with them - see, it wasn't so hard). --Eurocopter (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: DMorpheus has made one valid point: changing the name of the M10 tank destroyer in this article to that of a British nickname applied to it is anachronistic.
 * As for the comment regarding the article being heavily dependant on L.F. Ellis' work on Normandy; that is fictious. Ellis is mentioned three times all in relation to British operations and what the objective of the Second Army landing was! This is really not the place to be discussing personnel feelings on sources and i feel that you are using that excuse to make a mockery of this procedure - you have had months to be co-operative however you have shown little intrest other, like Eurocopter has said, throwing in snide comments. You say we should discuss edits and not editors but this is exactly what you are doing suggesting people have wasted there own free time when you alone are right. I would kindly remind you about the short discussion we had on your talk page regarding this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes US troops called them tank destroyeds (TDs) but nowadays they are almost exclusivly known as wolverines, and most readers who have heard of them will have heard this name.-- Patton t / c 12:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Patton while i can agree that most people will know them by the nickname i dont think the wiki should be the place to promote what essentially is myth.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Heavily criticized by who? By you? Maybe US official history is a bit pro US, so the British one would be the most NPOV."
 * The Official British history (Ellis) has been harshly criticized by Blumenson (the US Army's official historian for the Normandy campaign) and Carlo D'Este as "court history". Others also. As for the bias of the US official history, it was recently described by Zaloga as the still the best source on the operation. No one can claim any source is completely free of bias or error, but some are better than others, and I remind you again that this was a wholly US operation. Fortunately the article doesn't rely on Ellis as much as I wrongly stated; I'll have a look at Williams as well, and I got Blumenson over the weekend so I will begin re-editing soon.
 * Enigma, I believe you are correct that the M10 "wolverine" name is basically a myth that arose long after the war. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked your addition - listing a few historians does not support "most sources", and I think if a long list of cites is felt necessary to support a statement it often indicates the statement is either wrong or at best contentious. Every source has its POV, and we should present all significant perspectives equally. Having said that, there is undoubtedly controversy over the campaign (caused largely by the self-serving and contradictory writings of many of its participants after the war), so perhaps if we need to go into that it could be in a footnote or a separate section at the end of the article. Someone also proposed we write an article dedicated to the different spins on the campaign, which might be even better. EyeSerene talk 08:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That 'someone' was me ;) . "Most historians" is indeed supported - four of the six historians cited in the planning section support what I wrote; one is neutral; one doesn't. Significantly, the one opposing source is a biography, not a campaign history. DMorpheus (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Despite certain contentions, I can't see anything wrong with the article. Excellent work, Enigma! Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly Eurocopter this one i believe ;)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follows:
 * File:Cobra Coutances.jpg requires a link to where the image is stored on the National Archives or, preferably, lists its ARC identifier. Right now, it is pointing at the Archives' main page.
 * Have changed the source information to the website where it was located, website there states its from the archives.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please find out from the National Archives on the qualifier for this to be public domain per below. Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is no longer the National Archives, although the website states that is where the photo came from. I have looked around the archvies website and cannot find it. However the permission used is the following: "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain."
 * Surely then it is in the public domain?
 * That PD Army template is a general application and is no guarantee of the status of images in the Archives. Please take a look at this deprecated template on Commons (previously where it was assumed everything on Archives was okay), commons:Template:NARA.  To repeat, the Archives state that there are images not of public domain hosted on them.  As stated below, does File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg look like it was taken by the military?  It was not.  There were a few wartime newspaper journalists who tagged around the army HQs, taking shots for the newspapers back home.  The Archives host some of their images as well.  Contacting them for the ARC to verify the copyright status of these images is not an unreasonable request.  Jappalang (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the very first FAC facing such tiring image issues.. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Battleforceanmapenglish.PNG requires a source to verify that the lines of advancement are accurate. The image it is based on has no sources for this.
 * Verified data within the map with one of article's primary source, Hastings. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have contacted the author, heopfully he will get back to us soon.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say that I have not noted the source when I created the map and can not recall now, where I found said source. It was a map I found on the internet, though and therefore might be seen as insufficient. Kind regards, John N. (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Verified with Hastings and edited image summary. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For completeness, could the page numbers be supplied? Kind of hard on others to read through an entire 368-page book to verify four lines of advance.  Jappalang (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Saint Lo and Vicinity.jpg, File:Saint Lo and Vicinity - Operation Cobra.jpg, File:Normandybreakout.jpg, and File:Saint Lo Breakthrough.jpg have broken source links, please fix them.
 * Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please point to the page that is hosting the image instead of directly to the image. For example: "Image found on this page.  Specifically, this image."  Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:First Army Breakout.jpg and File:Coutances.jpg are credited to the National Archives on the army website. However, since it is cautioned that not all images on the National Archives are public domain (the vast majority is), it is best to locate the images on the Archives and identify its ARC identifier (commons:Template:PD-USGov-NARA).  Please do so.
 * Replaced first one, but leaved the second one in place, although couldn't find links to the National Archives. Considering that two websites use it and credits the National Archives (http://www.mtmestas.com/Military/campaigns/france-north.htm plus this one) it is clear that the image is in public domain (as all such images). --Eurocopter (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The National Archives is not a guarantor of public domain images. File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is on the National Archives, but is copyrighted to Joe Rosenthal of AP.  Image archives like the National Archives and Library of Congress do not guarantee the copyright status of their images.  They try their best, but ultimately cautioned all users to exercise their own discretion and evaluate the images accordingly.  See the explicitness on http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/195_copr.html for example.  Basically, they are saying "we have lots of images here, most of which, we believe, are in the public domain; however, it is all up to you to ensure that the images here are free of copyright."  You can contact the webmasters for the ARC identifier of those images, or contact the Archives.  Check out how through the use of the ARC (and templates), File:Nixon 30-0316a.jpg is verfiably PD. Jappalang (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are any of the editors contacting the Archives to find the ARC numbers or the authors? Jappalang (talk)

11:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already done this 5 days ago, but the process is quite slow and I should receive a response in two to five weeks from now on. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.
 * Greiss, p. 312 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Greiss, p. 316 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Bradley, p. 272| Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Trew, p. 49 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Williams, p. 185 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Williams, p. 181 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Hastings, p. 236 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Williams, p. 204 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Williams204 | Multiple references are given the same name -- TRU  CO   22:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference formatting found up to speed.-- TRU  CO   22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. Vivid, robust writing. Let's remember you when we need military nominations to be air-brushed. Could you manage a little reviewing here too?
 * Can't we have the First Army? It may be used without a deictic in the military, but it's kind of weird to us outsiders; I guess I got used to it.
 * No hyphen after "-ly"; please see MoS.
 * A tiny bit better than this: "Progress was slow on the first day, but once the thin defensive crust had been broken, opposition started to crumble." would be "Progress was slow on the first day, but opposition started to crumble once the thin defensive crust had been broken." Same issue here—bumpety-bump:
 * "To facilitate the Allied build-up in France and to secure room for further expansion, the deep water port of Cherbourg on the western flank of the American sector, and the historic town of Caen in the British and Canadian sector to the east, were early objectives." The sentence ends up being clunky to read. Problem solved by removing the last two commas, yes?


 * The noun plus -ing issue:
 * "The original plan for the Normandy campaign envisioned strong offensive efforts in both sectors, with Lieutenant-General Sir Miles Dempsey's British Second Army securing Caen and the area south of it,[7] and General Omar Bradley's United States First Army "wheeling round" to the Loire.[8]". Here's a solution. :-)


 * I Corps' at para opening is strange to all but the initiated; guess it's pronounced "one corps", is it? Readers will have to pause on it to get it. Possibly "The initial attempt by ..."?
 * Here's another clunky sentence; it's one of the few things you might watch in your writing:
 * "The efficiency of Cherbourg's defenders, which largely consisted of four battlegroups formed from the remnants of units that had retreated up the Cotentin peninsula, was extremely low, and the port's defences had been designed principally to meet an attack from the sea." Possibly make it:
 * "Cherbourg's defenders were not set up for robust performance, consisting largely of four battlegroups formed from the remnants of units that had retreated up the Cotentin peninsula; the port's defences had been designed principally to meet an attack from the sea." I'm unsure I've got it right (especially the "robust performance", which is an attempt to replace the vague "low efficiency"), but you could correct it with your knowledge.


 * "from 6 June – 20 July 1944"—MoS prefers either the en dash without "from", or "from 6 June to 20 ...".

Yumm. Great read. I haven't looked beyond the writing (1a) in terms of the criteria. Tony  (talk)  10:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, I didn't find any problems. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


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