Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Tractable

Operation Tractable
This article just passed its ACR on June 26, and this is sort of meant to be a pre-FAC Peer Review to ensure that I've worked out all the bugs and have all of the info present that needs to be there. Respectfully, Cam (Chat) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and I'm aware that the article needs maps, I am currently working to try and rectify this situation. Cam (Chat) 22:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jappalang
I had a cursory read and make the following suggestions.

Lead
 * "which aimed at capturing the" -> "which aimed to capture the"
 * "against the forces of Germany's Army Group B" -> "against Germany's Army Group B"
 * "was part of the largest encirclement on the Western Front"
 * Who encircled who? Perhaps, the entire sentence could be rewritten to make clearer the points it was trying to present.
 * It's actually simply meant to refer to it as being the largest encirclement undertaken by either side during the Western Front. I'll see if I can clear that up a bit. Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Although the Falaise gap had been significantly narrowed, a protracted series of fierce engagements between two battlegroups of the Polish 1st Armoured Division and the 2nd SS Panzer Corps on Mont Ormel prevented the gap from being completely closed and allowed thousands of German troops to escape."
 * I think this sentence is a bit run-offish; that the gap was narrowed already implied that it was not closed. Furthermore, I find the second clause hard to read with its length.  Perhaps this sentence can be broken into two or so sentences.
 * I think I've fixed it, you should probably check though. Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Through two days of nearly continuous fighting, Polish forces managed to hold off counterattacks by elements of seven German divisions, the defence characterised by massive artillery-barrages and close–quarter fighting between German and Polish infantry." -> "Through two days of nearly continuous fighting, Polish forces managed to hold off counterattacks by elements of seven German divisions; their defence was characterised by massive artillery-barrages and close–quarter fighting."
 * "leading to the capture of the remains of the German Seventh Army" -> "leading to the capture of remaining elements of the German Seventh Army"
 * Most of the lead has been corrected. Cam (Chat) 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Main text
 * "Despite initial gains from an innovative night attack"
 * What is innovative about the night attack? A brief description of this should suffice as I think the reader should not be teased to read another article just for an explanation of this adjective.
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "From there, all three formations would punch towards Trun [...] From there, a linkup with American forces at Chambois"
 * Rephrase the second sentence. The repetition of "from there" feels a bit disruptive to the "flow" of reading.
 * "2nd SS Panzer Corps counterattack"
 * Should the section's title have an "August 20" in it to be in line with the preceding "August 16–19" and succeeding "August 21"?
 * Maybe "August 20 counterattacks"? Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "St. Lambert-sur-Dives and Hill 117", Image:Elfeld Capture.jpg
 * Per MOS:IMAGE, left-aligned images should not be directly below second-level (===) headings. The image could be right-aligned and "Hill 262 (Mont Ormel)"'s Image:Polish hill 262.jpg can be left-aligned on its second paragraph. Done. Cam (Chat) 16:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article did quite well. My mind did not tune out during the reading and it was quite a smooth experience. Good luck for the FAC. Jappalang (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Thanks for your help! Cam (Chat) 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a few comments... generally looks pretty good (I'm here from VG for the record).
 * "Operation Tractable was the final Anglo–Canadian offensive during the Battle of Normandy, which aimed at capturing the strategically important town of Falaise and subsequently the towns of Trun and Chambois." - I think this would read better if split into two sentences (stop after "Normandy" I'd say). —Giggy 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Cam (Chat) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bellhalla

 * For an article of this length, I would expect a lead section of at least three paragraphs.
 * Do sources call it an "Anglo-Canadian" operation? It seems strange since it appears to be a Polish-Canadian (or Canadian-Polish?) operation with no mention of British forces, for example, in the infobox.
 * Bah, don't know why I didn't catch that. Thanks for pointing it out. Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are lots of military operation names used without much context. Example: the first paragraph of "Background", with Operation Cobra and Operation Lüttich mentioned. Yes, they are linked, but some context would be nice. You could do something like "… Operation Totekatzen, the German operation to kill Canadian cats, began … "
 * Done for Cobra (sentence immediately before) and Totalize (sentence immediately after), I'm pretty sure I've fixed the others as well. Cam (Chat) 16:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever your decision on auto formatted dates, be sure that you are consistent. Right now some are formatted, some are not.
 * Some strange case choices (I'm guilty of this a lot myself). Example "… Tractable would be launched in full daylight". How about just "… Tractable was launched in full daylight" instead? The choice of would can often lead to uncertainty as to whether it actually did happen or was just intended to happen.
 * Times, per MOS:NUM, should be formatted with a colon, even in 24-hour time. As an example, in the first sentence of the "Initial drive for Falaise" section, the time of 12:00, as currently formatted, blends in with the 800
 * Non-breaking spaces are needed between numbers and units (like between 500 and grenadiers)
 * Mostly done (it wouldn't hurt to check though). Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * metric or standard conversions for all measurements, please. Some that are missing: "88 mm anti-tank" (which should be "88-mm", incidentally), "six-mile front"
 * Image:St.-Lambert-surrender.jpg is immediately below a second-level heading, which is a no-no.
 * Consistency with commas for four-digit numbers: Some have them and some don't.
 * Done. Cam (Chat) 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of your notes need publisher information.
 * Done. Cam (Chat) 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The McGilvray book needs a place of publication.
 * Done. Cam (Chat) 16:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes 1 and 28 refer to "Van-Der-Vat", but the book's author is listed as "Van der Vat " in the "References" section.
 * Fixed. Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like I missed Note 32, also. The Der is still capitalized in the Notes section but lowercase in the References — Bellhalla (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Prior to FAC it wouldn't hurt to request a copyedit. There's nothing really wrong, but the prose could use some fine tuning in places.
 * Way ahead of you. I've already put in a request at the Logistics Department. Cam (Chat) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I don't disagree with anything you struck above, but it's generally regarded as poor form to strike another reviewers comments. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Borg Sphere
Otherwise it looks good and I wish you luck with Featured Article. Borg Sphere (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There weren't any citations in the lead. It seems that at the least it could use them at the number of prisoners taken, and a few other places would be nice.
 * In the Hill 262 section, the sentance "If this major obstacle could be cleared, German units could initiate a full retreat out of the Falaise Pocket.[22]" doesn't seem to flow well to me. It might be better rephrased as something along the lines of "If this major obstacle could be cleared, German units would be able to initiate a full..."  Fairly minor, but using could twice in a row seems to make it sound wrong.
 * Later in the same section, instead of "massacred," you may wish to put "inflicted heavy casualties upon" or something similar, rather than using the term Massacre, which MOS says to avoid when possible. Since it doesn't seem that they were massacring the Germans (killing unarmed ones), another term might be preferable.