Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Charnwood


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

Operation Charnwood

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

The offensive that got the ball rolling; Operation Charnwood was the operation in which the northern half of Caen was taken. Passed its GA last month, and I believe it is ready for A-Class. As a note, I will be quite busy with physics work throughout the next week, so if I am slow to respond, I apologize. Cam (Chat) 18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - (this version)
 * Dabs/external links look fine.
 * What makes http://59div.morssweb.com/?frontpage reliable?
 * The section of the website used does state its source information; that being a post war book wrote about the division (most likely by an ex member as was common to these types of works). Practically all formations that fought during the war, from the regiments up to Corps, released their own books telling their story.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not enough to establish reliability, though; see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for more. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. While the source is ok, the actual book i mean, the website states that the material is adapted from it nor does it state what pages it has used from said book making the job of verferying the sites contents somewhat tricky.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the site. Cam (Chat) 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to use cite book with all of the books?
 * Done.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we have publishing locations for all of the books in the bibliography?
 * References look fine.
 * I'll get back to this and try to do some of these myself. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Locations and OCLC's are done to the best of my ability, but I left a few hidden comments in the |location= parameter of some of the cite book's when I found discrepancy's between worldcat.org and the publisher you gave. You should probably give a quick check over all of the books, as I found a few ISBN's that were wrong. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple hidden comments still need checking, but if you don't know what to do with them, it's alright. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say but i think that website is rather wrong in places you know.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * 1) As per the article's talk page does Operation Jupiter deserve its own subsection in this article (it does already have its own separate article)? I can't currently see anything in this article that links Jupiter with Charnwood.
 * I think so. I'm basing most of the layout off of Operation Epsom, in which the "aftermath" section details what happened the next day. The section on Jupiter does something similar, outlining what was going on in the British sector the day after. Cam (Chat) 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale behind my comment is that in the Epsom article it is because the fighting is directly related; it is noted that the operation officially ended from the British perspective on 30 June however from the German perspective it carried on for at least another day. The section solely resolves around the continuation of the fighting in the Odon valley. Here there does not appear to be a connection other than you said highlighting that fighting carried on another part of the Anglo-Canadian front.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the lead can probably do with a bit of an expansion.
 * 2) "The artillery regiments of five divisions were tasked by Dempsey and Crocker to strike at known German defensive positions—some 656 artillery guns in total." seems a bit awkward to me, could it be altered to read slightly better?
 * Alright. Reworded. Cam (Chat) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "The 12th SS had at its disposal three primary regiments." Primary?
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "The 59th and 3rd Canadian Divisions advanced on a two-brigade front, which translated to two battalions and supporting armour per brigade" I think this sentence needs to be clarified a bit more.
 * Clarified. Cam (Chat) 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "capture of Authie by the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division later in the day enabled the assault on St-Contest to capture the town as Phase 3 of the operation began" I don’t believe Phase 1 or 2 have been identified earlier on in the text and their doesn’t appear to be anything about phases of Charnwood in the planning section.
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "On 18 July, after eight days of fighting and more than 5,000 casualties,[81] VII Corps succeeded in securing the town. In the fighting, 95% of the city was destroyed.[82] The capture of Saint-Lo allowed Bradley to launch his breakout offensive—Operation Cobra—on 25 July.[83] The same day, Dempsey and Second Army launched Operation Goodwood" - this needs to be reworded as it implies that Goodwood was launched on the 25th. #::I can't think of how to reword it, any suggestions? Cam (Chat) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something to the effect of: On 18 July Dempsey’s Second Army launched Operation Goodwood, the same day after eight days of fighting and more than 5,000 casualties,[81] US VII Corps succeeded in securing the town of Saint-Lo. In the fighting, 95% of the city was destroyed.[82] The capture of the city allowed Bradley to launch his breakout offensive—Operation Cobra—on 25 July.[83]--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it a bit to remove the reference to Cobra, so as to end confusion. Cam (Chat) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The aftermath section focuses quite a bit on Verrières Ridge and only mentions Goodwood slightly i think this needs to be balanced out and possibly some mention that the next major Anglo-Canadian objective would be Falaise.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It mentions Verrieres in a single sentence. Cam (Chat) 04:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still, personally, think that the section could contain some additional information however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) There is an inline citation from Tony Fould but no information in the referance section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Ref 43, 52 and 74 appear to be the same could add together under ref name
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * also 33 and 42
 * also 69 and 70
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the background section including two SS panzer divisions newly arrived in Normandy which two ?
 * I didn't add that ref, I have no idea. My educated guess is the 2nd SS and one other. Cam (Chat) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most likely the 9th and 10th - ill take a look and clairfy.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Deffo the 9th and 10th. I have added a note to the article hopefully that should suffice?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The image in the 8 July section A rifleman from I Corps takes cover in the streets of Caen during Operation Charnwood. Rifleman is a rank in the British Army unless he is a Rifleman could be changed to Soldier
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilink Panther tank, Verrières Ridge, Authie, Calvados , Bourguébus , Eterville , Buron , Herouville , Bomber Command
 * Done, although i have linked to RAF Bomber Command and not the Bomber Command article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I found the following after footnote #46. ^ a b Roy, p. 46 but there is nothing by anyone named Roy in the References. Also not all of the References are listed on the Reference list--is there a reason for this? Xatsmann (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support
 * "On 26 June, the next offensive was launched. Codenamed Operation Epsom." Awkward/fragment.
 * The German planning and preparation section seems short and has many choppy paragraphs.
 * Added in a bunch of info and expanded this section - should be ok now.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please fix the fact tag in Preliminary attacks.
 * done. Cam (Chat) 22:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Two days later, Rommel was removed from command of Army Group B, replaced by Field-Marshal Günther von Kluge." Awkward, missing an and, perhaps?


 * Please fix these and it should be ready for FAC. – Joe   N  17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. No major issues found and article appears to cover the topic well.  Good job.  One suggestion.  I'm aware that the English sources probably describe the battle from the Allied point of view by usually describing an Allied action and then the German reaction and then the Allied reaction to that.  One way to make the article look like it's not giving on point of view over the other is to try to start half the paragraphs with a German action, then the Allies' subsequent action or reaction in relation to that.  To be clear, I don't think this article has a big problem with that, just something to keep in mind if you will be producing more excellent articles on the Normandy or other campaigns in the future. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.