Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Vimy Ridge

Battle of Vimy Ridge
The article recently passed GAN. Looking to promote to A-class in the future. Recognizing that material from the German side is not well studied in this particular case, I am seeking constructive criticism. Labattblueboy (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling
This is certainly a good article. I learned a lot about this battle from it and I particularly like the use of images. My suggestions for how it could be developed are:
 * The article needs a copy edit - some sentences are too long, and jargon should be stripped out ✅
 * Things with articles of their own should only be linked the first time they're mentioned in the article (eg, there's no need to link to Canadian Corps, Battle of Verdun and the like multiple times) ✅
 * The first sentence should be merged into the second paragraph ✅
 * The 'Artillery' section is a bit abrupt - it doesn't really fit into the article at present given that it's a snapshot of the artillery support available and isn't focused on artillery's role in the battle plan
 * The 'Tactical plan' section says that Canadian observations of the Battle of Verdun led to the adoption of more flexible tactics, but the 'Training' section attributes this to a British Army pamphlet - this seems a little bit contradictory as written
 * Some clarification has been made. I don't really see a contradiction however as the influences of the pamphlet were likely the result of the same Verdun lectures.


 * The reasons why the Germans made such a limited response to a two week bombardment should be expanded upon, as this seems to have been remarkably lax. Were they short of reinforcements because of the need to respond to Allied offensives elsewhere?
 * I haven't seen the term 'battle untested' used before ✅
 * The sentence "The Canadian Corps had achieved an impressive advance however the failure to capture the entirety of Hill 145 or the Pimple left much of the territory gained in a tenuous state." needs a cite removed ✅
 * I think that the 'Commemoration' section needs a lot of work. This section should explain the significance of the battle to Canada, and use the current content only as examples of this. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The section has been re-written in a Gallipoli Campaign style.✅

Borg Sphere
I also thought that this was a very good article, generally informative and good. Only a few issues:
 * As Nick said, several major grammatical issues. A thorough copy-edit is needed. ✅
 * In the "Main Assault" section, you mention that one of the commanders in the 4th division asked to leave part of the trenches intact, but don't explain why. This is obviously unusual, so a bit more explanation might be nice.✅
 * More explanation would be nice, but unfortunately that's not possible. In the Godefroy's The 4th Canadian Division: 'Trenches Should Never be Saved' chapter of Vimy Ridge: A Canadian Reassessment he laments that no more data is provided in the Nicholson history or its citations. Labattblueboy (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then a perhaps a mention that the reason for this unusual choice is unknown?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * " Green," "new," "fresh," or something like that might be nice instead of battle untested. It makes it look like a translation by someone who doesn't speak idiomatic English and translated it literally (from French?). A couple other places also have this problem.  ✅
 * What are the other examples that are of issue? Labattblueboy (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Overall an excellent article with only a few issues, the biggest of those being the need for a copyedit. Borg Sphere (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Aftermath section, you might want to talk more about the long-term strategic implications of the ridge capture, for example if it was retaken during the 1918 Spring Offensive, if any attacks were launched from it later, etc.
 * You might want to combine some more citations, for example, instead of Nicholson 262 and Nicholson 263, you might want to put Nicholson 262-3. I'm not sure what MOS says about this, but it seems to me that it would look better.