Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Frederick E. Morgan


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerene talk 09:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Frederick E. Morgan

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Relatively few articles on British generals. This one on Frederick Morgan was actually a spin off of the one I did on Bedell Smith; I often create a number of spin off articles. I went through and attempted to produce articles on the key staff at SHAEF. For most US and British Army officers, service at SHAEF was a career ender. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: looks quite good. I'm happy to support, but I have the following suggestions/comments:
 * there are no dab links;
 * images appear appropriately licenced;
 * "stripped of its two artillery field regiments", might sound smoother as "stripped of its two field artillery regiments";
 * But is would not be clear that it meant all of them unless the reader knows the OOB of an armoured division of the day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't quite follow. My take is that "field" describes the type of artillery regiment, rather than "artillery" describing the type of field regiment. Not really a warstopper, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaargh. Sorry. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if "antiaircraft" shouldn't be presented as "anti-aircraft"?
 * as above "antitank" -> "anti-tank"?
 * Okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "The 1st Armoured Division was reformed, and became a mobile reserve in south eastern England, with the task of counter attacking an invading German army. The 1st Support Group being given two Canadian infantry battalions for the purpose". I think this needs to be tweaked slightly. Perhaps consider: "The 1st Armoured Division was subsequently reformed, and became a mobile reserve in south eastern England. Tasked with launching a counter attack in the event of a German invasion, the group received two Canadian infantry battalions for the purpose."
 * The role was for the whole division; your proposed rewrite might make it sound like just the 1st Support Group. Rewritten to merge both versions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I see what you mean. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Morgan's corps headquarters, designated Force 125, with the 1st Division and 4th Division..." Perhaps try: "Morgan's corps headquarters, designated Force 125, along with the 1st and 4th Divisions...";
 * Not quite right: tried a different version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Initially, Morgan's staff consisted of an aide, two batmen and a driver..." We should never have gotten rid of batmen. I'm lucky now if a Digger leaves some water for me after making his own brew... ;-) Sorry, I couldn't resist...
 * "Morgan established headquarters in Norfolk House at 31 St James's Square". Perhaps: "established his headquarters"?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, all the key features of Morgan's plan remained- the choice of Normandy as the assault " The hyphen here probably should be either a spaced endash or an unspaced emdash;
 * in the COSSAC section "Commander in Chief" might be overlinked;
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * in the SHAEF section "Allied Forces Headquarters" might be overlinked given that it was linked only a couple of paragraphs earlier in the COSSAC section;
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Morgan also was called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery". Perhaps reword slightly to: "Morgan was also called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery..."
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this should be moved out of the SHAEF section to the "Post-War section": "He was also Colonel Commandant of the Royal Artillery from 1948 to 1958.[2]"
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Morgan's position in Germany was eliminated by UNRRA Director Fiorello La Guardia". This might sound smoother as: "Morgan's position in Germany was terminated by UNRRA Director Fiorello La Guardia";
 * No, the eliminated means they got rid of the position; terminated just means they got rid of him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the subtleties of the English language. I was thinking that they just got rid of him. Dastardly. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "antisemitic". I wonder if this should be "anti-Semetic"?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "but was dropped from the test series to save money". Given the possible confusion of the word "dropped" in the context of weapons, perhaps "removed" might be a better choice here;
 * Heh. Good point. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * in the Notes, # 1 is a different format to the others. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Got rid of it. Thanls for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Fine work as usual, some prose/content points in addition to my usual copyedit:
 * ...a British Army officer who fought in the First World War and the Second World War -- "fought in both World Wars" instead? A side effect would be that you don't have to remove the currently redundant link to First World War in the next paragraph...
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Won't make a fuss about it but I don't think national terms like "German" and "Spain" need linking -- cities and towns, and states/provinces on their own, are fair enough.
 * Morgan became Deputy Chief of Staff to Major General Bedell Smith -- not sure of the expression here, or perhaps it's just the vagaries of the organisation, but since Smith was COS to Ike, did that in fact make Morgan DCOS to Ike, or was he really DCOS to Smith? Whatever the case, it might be better to say Morgan was "Deputy Chief of Staff under Major General Bedell Smith" to avoid confusion...
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As it was envisaged that the Supreme Allied Commander would be British, it was decided to appoint a British Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander (Designate) (COSSAC)... -- don't you mean "envisaged that the Supreme Allied Commander would be American..."?
 * No. Added  and the usual practice was for the commander and the chief of staff to be of the same nationality Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Photo caption: Senior Allied commanders at SHAEF headquarters in Rheims shortly after the German surrender... -- bit picky I know but Kay Summersby and Harry Butcher weren't senior commanders, how about just "Allied officers"?
 * Nor were Smith and Morgan for that matter. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The plan set forth in detail the conditions under which the assault could be made, the area where a landing would be feasible, and the means by which it would be developed -- can you clarify just what it was that would be developed, the plan or the assault/landing itself?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the COSSAC subsection you say "north-west Europe" (which I hyphenated, as it sounds like a general geographical term) and "North West Europe", which reads like an area command -- do you mean the same thing in each case? If so the terms should be consistent.
 * No hyphens, no caps, per MOS:CAPS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...to assist with Civil Affairs -- again, should this in fact be in caps?
 * No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You use "furore" twice re. the UNRRA situation -- can you use another term for one of them, e.g. "sensation" or some such?
 * "Uproar" Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Morgan, who was "amiable but not adequate to the task"... -- as a criticism, this probably should include attribution, e.g. "Morgan, who according to so-and-so was 'amiable but not adequate to the task'..."
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Image licensing looks okay, as do references and citation, structure, and level of detail; I'm going to pass on source spotchecks as I've been through one or two recently with Hawkeye that didn't cause special concern. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks for all that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments Support
 * External links check out (no action required).
 * The citation check tool reveals one error with reference consolidation:
 * (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * Wrong ref in the second case. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Morgan also was called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery...", perhaps consider instead "Morgan was also called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery..."
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency with isbns as some have hypthens and others do not.
 * Ran the bot over it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some overlinking of authors in the References section per WP:REPEATLINK.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support with just a few comments.
 * "With his military background, Morgan was appalled at the corruption, inefficiency and political diversion of UNRRA. " -- are there any specific examples of the corruption? It would help to have a little more context.
 * "He retired in 1956, but remained Colonel Commandant of the Royal Artillery until 1958. He died at Mount Vernon Hospital on 19 March 1967." -- Any more info about what he did after military service? Kind of seems like his subsequent life was an afterthought.
 * Great work. — Ed! (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.