Talk:Battle of Vimy Ridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Vimy Ridge article.
Article policies
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (See comments)
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Battle of Vimy Ridge was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 23, 2007

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

Contents

[edit] map

i found this map, is it useable under fair-use?

there's a high-res map too... Mike McGregor (Can) 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think so its a goverment picture. DimitriTheCanuck 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

hi res. maps (artillery and advance w/ order of battle) have been added.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decisive Anglo-Canadian Victory or British-Canadian Victory?

Would someone please justify their feelings on this? This seems to be controversial. --Zegoma beach 21:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It was part of the overall Battle of Arras, which was a British operation, and at least one British brigade went up Vimy Ridge itself on 9 Apr, which is not reflected on the map I uploaded to the page. Canadian nationalism aside, there were significant British assets employed in addition to the infantry brigade, including British artillery, service units, and the Royal Flying Corps who provided aerial recce.Michael Dorosh 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
That's true but this battle is significant for Canadian history, so it's not "vandalism" when someone removes the "Anglo-" part from "Anglo-Canadian victory". We just never hear about anyone else's contribution to the battle; in fact we only learn that the British and French failed miserably before the Canadian attempt. It's just well-intentioned editing, not vandalism. I'm not sure what the British equivalent would be...Agincourt? Trafalgar? Waterloo? You probably never think of the Prussian contribution to Waterloo, right? Adam Bishop 20:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Importance to Canadian history does not mean that everyone else involved simply disappears, though. I'm not sure what your point is.Michael Dorosh 00:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing really, just that it's probably not vandalism, as you called it. Adam Bishop 00:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. An article on the larger Battle of Arras exists already. Feel free to label it "British victory" or whatever you will.
  2. I'm not convinced that the British contribution was such as would require a modification of "Canadian victory." We ought to weigh substance against symbolism, true, but committing token forces to a major operation does not make one an equal participant (dozens of articles out there are described as "British victory" that included Canadian troops—perhaps you would like to systematically track these down and change them to "Anglo-Canadian victory"?) From my experience working with battles of different periods I'd say 1/3 is a good benchmark: When a given nation constitutes a third of an army, it is entitled to full representation. Not so in this case.
  3. As for air assets, perhaps I should remind you that 24,000 Canadians served in the Royal Flying Corps (a third of RAF airmen were Canadian by 1918), so speaking of a "British" instrument, even there, is misleading. And arguing on the basis of service units, I have to add, is fairly weak. Somehow, I doubt the commissariat was involved in charging German trenches at the bayonet. Albrecht 02:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The confusion with the terms 'Canadian' and 'British' or 'Anglo' stems largely from the popular revisionist application or understanding of them in current parlance; mostly to serve the interests of a largely anti-British nationalism that regards Vimy as a 'founding mythology'. In the context of the period, of World War I, all Canadians were British. Canadian citizenship itself did not exist until 1947 and, even then, still included being 'British'. The Canadian Corps was a corps of the British Army. Canada, although a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire, remained subject to the British government. 'Anglo' is inappropriate in this context because it reduces the 'British' Army to a particular ethnicity, i.e., English, when, of course, 'Britishness' at the time applied to one's status within the Empire rather than to one's ethnic group. The 'Canadians' themselves were comprised mainly (approx. two-thirds) of soldiers native to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, whose British status and identity as members of the 'Canadian Corps'was not altered. One must distinguish between the identity of the 'Corps'at that time within the British Army and that of the identity of a whole nation in the same way that one identifies the 'Scottish' regiments as distinct from Scotland itself. There is a suggestion in the narrative that with the victory, being 'Canadian' implied no longer being 'British; as if the battle itself was won for 'independence'from Britain. There is absolutely no evidence for this even though it has been repeated so often that Canada is frequently referred to today as having been allied with Britain as they later were in World War II. It is worth noting in counterpoint that the recruitment posters and appeals in Canada for World War II continued to appeal largely to the British identity and sentiment of the Canadian population; even in Quebec, where French-Canadian nationalism and resentment toward the British in England and Canada and the notion of 'conscription' was as evident as it was in World War I. While there is no doubt that the performance of the Canadian Corps enhanced the developing 'Canadian' identity and supported the Canadian government's desire for a more distinct place 'at the table' alongside the Mother Country, the Imperial sentiment within Canada itself was sustained through the Statute of Westminster until well after the post-world war two period when successive political developments directed towards appropriating Franco-Canadian sentiment within the national identity has resulted in a re-branding of the country, its symbols and its history; including Vimy Ridge.pidd 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well Done pidd! Very good overview that it very true. As a Canadian I agree wholeheartedly with your point here, and only wish that I had taken the time to make this same arguement. TrulyTory 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Albrecht on this subject. Although the Canadian "Identity" according to some didn't exist in WW2 and was a way to make the french happy after WW2 that is NOT correct. The Canadian identity was building since Confederation. As the first Canadian Prime Minister John A. Macdonald said at a time where most Canadians were devided "Let us be French, let us be English, but most importantly let us be Canadian!". Canada may have not have self goverment till the Statue of WestMinister, it may have not had its own Constitution till 1982 but the Canadian idenity started many years before World War 1, and The Battle of Vimy Ridge was one of the first things Canadians associate with the Canadian idenity that was building for many years to call their own because of the quick Canadian Victory that the French and British were not able to do. DimitriTheCanuck 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the 'Canadian'identity since Confederation, through the South African War, the First World War, the Statute of Westminster, 1931, the Second World War and until the sixties remained also a 'British' identity not an 'English' or 'French' one. The Canadian identity was transformed at Confederation from being 'French', i.e., Canadiens, to all subjects in the Dominion. Because the Canadian identity before 1968 wasn't the current sense of it (and by all accounts there remains a weaker unity in the sense of identity than those of previous generations) does not imply that they were somehow 'less' Canadian before 1982. It is just that the understanding had chanaged. Do not confuse the identity of the 'Canadian Corps' with that of Canadian citizenship. While the former was forged at Vimy Ridge, the latter was not an issue at the time; although certain anti-British and Republican sentiments did exist and have some influence.pidd 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to 'allies' as Canada and the UK were not 'allies' in the First World War. Canada was a part of the British Empire. Because the largest participant in the battle was the Canadian Corps they obviously deserve to be highlighted although it still might be misconstrued that Sir Julian Byng commanded only the UK forces when, in fact, he commanded all the forces with Sir Arthur Currie under him. It doesn't contribute to the myth that Canada was fighting for its independence like a Bunker Hill but it remains the historical fact.pidd 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian focus

Because this battle is so important to Canadians, many descriptions are from the Canadian point of view. But objectively, shouldn't there be more information on the defensive side, on the allied forces, and a less triumphalist tone? Being Canadian I probably have trouble identifying the problem areas, but I'm sure that someone from another nationality would spot the problem areas quickly.

The battle was strategically unimportant, and the greater campaign it was attached to did not have a grand effect on the outcome of the war. As far as the History of the War is concerned, it is of minor importance, but as far as the History of Canada is concerned, it is one of the defining moments. If I have any concerns, it is the fact that the British division attached the the battle disappeared in the description of the events of the battle. I also think there's too much concern about the lack of British representation in the "it's not only a Canadian victory" section. Those points might be worthy of mentioning, but on a scale of what was employed rather than pointing out that the British made a contribution. --Forgottenlord 01:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It was not a division, but a brigade of British infantry, that was attached to the Canadian Corps for the initial assault. But the point is taken.Michael Dorosh 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It says that the British assistance was sizable, but can you compare it to the Canadians commitment? In 4 days, the battle was over. Shouldn't that count for a good point? pirkid 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Vimy

It should be also mentioned that a program to celebrate the 90th anniversary of Vimy Ridge is being planned, and it is huge. See http://www.returntovimyridge.ca/index.htm for details.

I was expecting a bit more hubbub about this. I was one of the Canadian students at the Memorial that day, and from what Ive seen, it was covered by French, English, and Canadian news channels. I thought it might be interesting to read a NPOV description of the events, as me, my peers, and several teachers in my group felt that it was somewhat... dissapointing. The news and event organisers seem to have nothing but praise for the event, but... bah, whatever. A little more info in that section would be nice, is all. 74.101.96.39 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indirrect Fire

"The Canadians also used a new technique they called "Indirect Fire", which utilized machine guns to hold German troops down in their trenches and also provide cover for their own troops..."

Indirrect Fire was not a new technique, just new as far as its application with machine guns.

Motorfix 12:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Does this article have enough references? The two footnotes appear at first glance to only serve as sources for two minor facts. In fact the first source actually contains much/all of the information up to that point in the article. Is there a way to make that more clear? From the placement of the second footnote, it would appear to only apply to the first bullet of the British forces section. Are there sources for the rest of the article? According to WP:CITE: All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". So the books listed there are apparently not sources for the article. Sewebster 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is safe to say this has, or is on route, of being addressed.Labattblueboy (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] strategic significance

Someone earlier said that Vimy Ridge had little, if none, strategic significance. That's not entirely true. Vimy Ridge was to be taken as a guard for the northern flank of the British forces in the Arras Campaign. The Germans also thought that it had a strategic significance. It's the highest point in the Vimy Area, it goes on for miles, and allows whoever controls it to have a view of the surrounding area that goes for miles. That seems to be a good reason for it to be a strategic position for whoever controls it.

Climie.ca 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Cam

[edit] wikiproject canada

how come this article isn't within the scope of wikiproject canada?? IT seems to me that if it's in wikiproject Germany then it should most definitely be in wikiproject Canada

68.145.221.178 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Cam

[edit] Isn't that special?

Just watching a History Channel "broadcast premiere" doc saying wireless for art obs debuted there. Can somebody confirm? It also shows tunnels. Worth a mention? It also says, by Vimy, Canadians were the best flash spotters in the British Army. Confirm? Trekphiler 04:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added references to Ted Barris' book

I added a few references from the Ted Barris book. Note:

  • was mentioned the sound of guns could be heard from London. I thought this claim needed a reference, but Barris says it could be heard at the Hythe School of Musketry in "southern of England" so I took out "London". If anyone can find a reference for "London" then by all means...
  • Barris' figures are 15,000 Canadians in the first wave and 12,000 in the second... to reconcile this with the existing "30,000" claim I changed it to "27,000". Also added that in total, 100,000 men were to take and hold the ridge. I added this since I think it's important to portray the scale of the battle. I assume this means there were more than 60,000 additional troops and support personnel to follow the first 2 waves... P. Moore 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Battle" section

Paragraph states "The first wave of about 15,000 Canadian troops attacked positions defended by roughly 5,000 Germans, followed by the second wave of 12,000 Canadians to meet 3,000 German reserves. Nearly 100,000 men in total were to take and hold the ridge."

This would seem to mean that 27,000 troops attacked 8,000 yet the German/Austrian casualties add up to 20,000 dead, and 4,000 captured, i.e. 24,000. I can understand why the intial strength may be "Unknown" but these numbers should make a bit better sense. DAG 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 150,000 French killed?

I requested a citation for this (in Background). Ted Barris' book "Victory at Vimy" page 256, says "During the spring and summer of 1915, the French Army had attempted to take the ridge with the loss of 40,000 men killed." Maybe there were 150,000 casualties & 40,000 killed? I'll leave this for about a month, then if no one responds I'll make the change citing Barris' book. P. Moore 12:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


It should be mentioned that the french losses were not strictly the result of attempts to take the ridge but casualties related to all operations along that front during the Battles or Artois. The vast majority of casualties were suffered in taking nearby east-west ridge just north of Vimy Ridge, were is now located Notre Damn de Lorette, and in attacks on the Labyrinth. It would be more appropriate to cite Barris' source rather than Barris himself. If he does not provide a source the citation should not be included.

If you would like a more appropriate source from which to cite casualties I would suggest Battle of Vimy Ridge 1917 by Jack Sheldon and Nigel Cave, both of which are considered leading experts. --Labattblueboy 16:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic advantage, or not?

The attack and objective had more limited grand-strategic significance as the simultaneous British and Australian attack to the south was unsuccessful.

More limited grand-strategic significance? Does that mean more significance, or less significance?

--Commking 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It means that, although strategically important, the Battle of Arras to the south ended largely in stalemate. In addition, the French offensive north of Verdun failed as well. So although the Canadians won, their allies were in no position to capitalize on it.

Climie.ca 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Cam

I've found full clarification. Vimy Ridge was strategically important for a simple reason, both sides had deemed it to be strategically important. The German's had used massive amounts of resources to fortify it, and the British were ready to assault it with four divisions [Canadian Corps], 1200 guns, and an additional brigade.

There's a fair amount of over-simplication going on here. The first is to see Vimy as a stand alone battle. It wasn't. It was a component of the Battle of Arras, which was in turn part of the Nivelle Offensive, which was in turn part of a stragegy for the War decided at Allied government level.
The ridge was symbolically important because of the blood spilled unsuccessfully trying to take it. It was important because it dominates the plain of Douai (with coal resources) and could be (and was) used for artillery ranging on Arras town. It was not of great strategic importance and was certainly not the natural fortress from which the big push that ended the war came a couple of years later (as a couple of editors have claimed here). Militarily Vimy was important because it tested new Allied (no, not exclusively Canadian) tactics that were eventually to break the trench deadlock.
It is not true to say that the Brits and the Aussies failed in their attacks on the Canadian flanks. They took and held nearly all of their (admittedly limited) planned objectives. What they didn't do was to achieve the long-dreamt of breakthrough (which means moving in force right through ALL the German lines, including the deep reserve ones) into the open country beyond and then engaging in conventional - as opposed to siege/trench - warfare. However the breakthrough had only ever been a fond hope: it was never part of the battle plan. Finally, Haig was forced to press the attack well after its sell-by date in order to stop the Germans reinforcing the their divisions at Champagne/Aisne where the Nivelle Offensive was floundering. Roger 07:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality please

I know that Vimy Ridge is important to Canada but that doesn't mean this article can be as gung-ho as it is or air-brush away inconvenient facts. For instance, the oficial Canadian war history places heavy blame for the loss of the ridge on German failure to have (a) its front line sufficiently manned; (b) its counter-attack divisions close enough to be effective and (c) its counter-attack made earlier enough. None of this gets a mention. I should also mention that Byng was an exceptional commander who recognised Curry's logistical abilities and sent him to Verdun to study French methods. Roger 17:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Roger. In particular, the failure to properly employ the "elastic defence" (which would work quite well on the Aisne) is frequently (and correctly) cited as a major factor in the success not just at Vimy Ridge, but in the entire northern part of the Arras offensive. Carom 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] canadian wounded figure

We can't seem to agree on whether it was 7104 wounded Canadians or 7004 Canadians. Could someone come up with one or the other and firmly reference it? Cam 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)User:Climie.ca

Nicholson in the (Official War History p239)) says "Canadian casualties in the two days' fighting totalled 7707, of which 2967 were fatal". Roger 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll assume those dates are April 9 and 10, in that case. However, the battle didn't actually end until April 12 (When "The Pimple" was taken) and the fatal casualties were, by that point, 3,598. Significantly heavy casualties were taken attempting to wrestle "the pimple" from German forces. Cam 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Vimy Ridge (Osprey) gives the same fatalities figure as you (3,598) and Central Powers about 2,000. No calculation of casualties though. Roger 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Casualties

The figure of 20,000 casualties seems exceedingly high considering that there were probably well below that number of men defending the Ridge, including the reserves that were brought up. Kscheffler 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We really do need sources every time for casualty figures. We do have sources for fatalities: it makes sense here to quote them in the absence of anything better Roger 06:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sound of the Guns

Is there any reference that can be cited for the statement regarding the sound of the battle being heard a hundred miles away in England? 24.168.5.87 02:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is well attested. It's associated with drumfire. The poet Edmund Blunden wrote about hearing the Somme barrage in Kent: "in Southdown villages the schoolchildren sat wondering at that incessant drumming and rattling of the windows". If you have access to the Times Digital Archive there was considerable correspondence about it in mid and late August 1917. There's a scientific explanation too (The Times, Tuesday, Aug 21, 1917; pg. 9; Issue 41562; col C Gunfire. A Paradox Of Audibility. GEORGE F. SLEGGS, B.Sc. Category: Letters to the Editor). Hope this helps. ROGER TALK 08:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

== GA Failed (2007-11-23) ==


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Details: Just in case, WP:MILMOS.

  • Lead
    • It is too short. It only states the "what", and needs "who" ( allies vs germans participants ), "where" ( where exactly is vimy ridge ), "when" ( time range of battle ), and "why" ( why is this battle important then ), mainly summarized from the main article.
Done Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Background

** What exactly is Vimy Ridge and where is it located within Vimy? Why it is prominent geographical or strategical location in the war?

done Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

** "The French had suffered thousands of casualties in previous attempts to take it and lost 150,000 men in 1915,[3] including about half of the elite Moroccan Division and two-thirds of a full regiment (3,000 men) of the French Foreign Legion. The French had taken the ridge but were unable to hold it against a pulverising counter-attack when reinforcements failed to arrive on time." - An over lengthy sentence

don eLabattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "The duty was given to the still relatively fresh, but previously successful, Canadians." What were the Canadians previously successful in?(Battle of Flers-Courcelette-fixed)
deleted Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

** "They were joined by the British 5th Infantry Division (in corps reserve), and British artillery, engineer and labour units," - Drop the second British -> "They were joined by the British 5th Infantry Division (in corps reserve), artillery, engineer and labour units,"

elaborated and cleaned up. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

** "Haig argued that he could not advance at Arras while leaving his flank exposed to Vimy. Nivelle opposed Haig's plans for Vimy, but Haig's argument eventually prevailed." can be changed to "Haig argued that he could not advance at Arras while leaving his flank exposed to Vimy, overriding Nivelle's opposition." Regardless, this feels like an isolated out-of-place statement. Rework it to link to the previous and succeeding paragraphs. not centrally relevant, deleted. Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) ** Why was Arthur Currie sent to study Nivelle's plans for Verdun? How did plans for Verdun suit Vimy? Relate them, or explain/show that the Allied commanders simply based their judgement on broad criteria. Otherwise this paragraph feels like a propaganda piece for Nivelle. WP:NPOV

Was sent with other staff officers to study and learn from Battle of Verdun. Clearlt explained in influence of french section. Done Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Prior to the attack, a replica of the battlefield was constructed under Currie's personal supervision and the assault battalions were rotated through it." Is it a scaled down sand-model, or a scaled down replica, or a 1:1 replica, or a partial replica of significant areas? Hard to believe they could build a 1:1 replica...

** "As with the Battle of Arras, tunnelling companies played a crucial role." Wouldn't that be sappers? Use the term with the wiki-link.

Tunneling companies are the formal term. A sapper, in british terms, is a rank. Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

** "They had been at work since December 1916 excavating a vast network of tunnels under the battlefield, enabling troops to be brought from Arras right up to the front line in secrecy and in safety. They placed mines under the German front line and dug long "subways" (tunnels), the ends of which were detonated at Z-hour, giving waiting platoons closer access to the German line." - Are we talking about Arras or Vimy Ridge here...? expanded in underground section Labattblueboy (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

    • "German forces knew that a major attack was planned in the near future, but they remained ignorant of the exact date of the attack." - Besides requiring a citation, the sentence needs rework.
  • Battle
Entire section needs to be rewritten and expanded.--Labattblueboy 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "On March 25, 1917, the largest artillery barrage in history up to that point started." - Requires source.
    • "The German trenches were constantly shelled for 24 hours a day for one week, using over one million shells." change to "Over a million shells were shot onto the German trenches for 24 hours a day for a week."(done)

** "The German artillery pieces were hidden behind the ridge, but by using observation balloons in the air and microphones on the ground to triangulate the sound and flashes from their firing (techniques known as "sound ranging" and "flash spotting"), the Canadians were able to locate and destroy about 83% of the German guns." Cite the 83% figure (this could be minor)

done, fact moved to artillery subsection of Assault preparations section --Labattblueboy 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Cite the source for the "Week of Suffering" claim.(done)

** "The Canadians also made many night trench raids during this week, although General Arthur Currie thought this was an unnecessary risk and a waste of men" Was Arthur Currie not the commanding officer of this battle? If so, why did he approve it in spite of his apprehensions, and did the officer conducting the raids suffer military disciplinary actions for going against a commanding officer? If not, who approved it and what was Arthur Currie's position in relation to this commanding officer?

fact untrue and long ago deleted, Currie still used trench raids as a divisional commander, a full trench raid section now exists--Labattblueboy 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

** "Against this, the raids gained much intelligence which "enabled the Canadians to take their objectives with lighter losses than would otherwise have been possible"" changed to "The raids gained intelligence which "enabled the Canadians to take their objectives with lighter losses than would otherwise have been possible"."

a full trench raid section now exists, text completely rewritten--Labattblueboy 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "At dawn on Easter Monday, April 9, the assault divisions of the Canadian Corps attacked." - Either use "Easter Monday", or "April 9", it is needless to use both. (reworded)

** "The attack was so loud, the sound of guns could be heard plainly in southern England, about a hundred miles from the front." Requires source. (deleted) ** "Over 1,100 cannons of various descriptions, from British heavy naval guns mounted on railway cars miles behind the battlefield, to portable field artillery pieces dragged into place by horses, mules, or soldiers just behind the Canadian lines, fired continuously." - This statement makes it seem the soldiers had to advance through their own artillery bombardment... Replace the "fired continuously" with something else, or place the statement somewhere else which could link to what phases/plans the artillery were put into use. Unless of course, the Canadians did have to advance through their own artillery pieces in the plan, which would be notable enough to mention in the article. As the entire plan is only revealed two paragraphs later, this breaks up the flow of the section, and should be re-organised for better readability. (improved, but still awkward)

done, entire artillery section rewritten. Full artillery and preliminary barrage sections exist with greater detail and clarity.--Labattblueboy 21:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

** The entire paragraph "At dawn..... Chief of the Imperial General Staff during World War II." reads like alternating sentences between the infantry advance and the artillery plan. Each sentence is disjointed in context from the next or previous sentence. Reorganise them.

done
    • "On Z-Day, all went well." Those familiar with military terms would recognise "Z-Day", but remember Wikipedia is to be read by all.
    • "Additionally, the massed British and Australian divisions attacking along a 24-mile front on the Canadian Corps' north and south flanks achieved their preliminary objectives." How did this aid the VImy Battle? Did it cut off reinforcements to Vimy? Did it caused confusion within German high command? Did it forced a German strategical retreat from this section of the front?
  • Results
    • "By April 12, the Canadians controlled the entire ridge, at a cost of 3,598 men killed and 7,004 wounded, for a total of 10,602 casualties." - Total casualties is a redundant figure. Reword it.
    • Why are we now then told it is the German Sixth Army defending the ridge? Is it only them, or are they just an unlucky bunch with the highest casualties?
  • Commentary
    • What is the purpose of this section? Why is it notable? Could it not have been reworked into the article as quotes or references?
  • Enduring legacy
    • "To some Canadians, the name Vimy Ridge remains very meaningful historically." Besides the grammatical mistakes in it, WP:WEASEL.
    • "and sealed the reputation of the Canadians as among the finest troops on the Western Front." This proclaimation comes from a Canadian magazine, which clearly contradicts WP:NPOV.
  • 90th Anniversary of the Battle
    • "This movement is verifiable if one references the 'Further Reading' list below with its multiple 2007 publications." - Just type out the name and title of the publication here without pointing readers to go look for it themselves in the reference section (It must still be left in the References section).
    • "At the Vimy Memorial over 25,000 people, primarily Canadians, attended a ceremony that commemorated the 90th anniversary of the battle and re-dedicated the Memorial itself upon the completion a multi-year restoration program. The 'pilgrims' to the Commemoration and Re-Dedication ceremony included over 5,000 Canadian students from all across Canada, many of whom were involved in a program that saw them representing a Canadian soldier who died in the battle at Vimy Ridge. The presiding platform party included her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II who formally re-dedicated the restored memorial, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who delivered speeches." - The reference for this is an article which requires payment, which goes against Wikipedia policy. (This paper (Globe and Mail) is in most reference libraries)
  • Notes and sources
    • Visible source numbering is messed up totally. Best if convert all citations to the same inline structure with templates.
    • Globe and Mail is a purchase (subscription) site. (This paper (Globe and Mail) is in most reference libraries)
    • [1] yields a 404 error message (no such document at this link). (Was an online scan of Nicholson, GWL)

With regards to all these, I have failed this article as a GA. Once the concerns are addressed, the article can be re-submitted again as it does possess substantial information on the battle. I have corrected some of the grammatical errors/tweaks I have listed above. Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the above most excellent feedback. Any objections to striking out above lines to keep track as issues are addressed?LeadSongDog 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that will be an issue; it'll help keep track of things. MelicansMatkin 20:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Not having followed the editing progress on this page for quite some time, I'm curious as to whether the above suggestions by Jappalang have been crossed-off after they've been added in the last few weeks? It would give a good indication as to when a second GA-nomination of this article could be made. Who knows, with a lot of hard work this article could reach FA within the next few months! MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of confusion here as to who Currie and Byng were. Thanks to Labattbeerboy for clearing that up.

To address Jappalang’s questions regarding the trench raids. Currie, like the article stated, thought the raids were a waste of men and therefore the First Division did not take part in them. He thought the Fourth Division’s difficulties during the battle was a result of it’s diminished effectiveness due to the casualties it suffered during the raids. Nothing wrong with more detail so I think that could be added back in.

As for Sappers. WW1 saw a vast amount of tunnels dug. Just as soldiers are organized into platoons, battalions or companies so were other support groups. There must have been 40 or 50 tunneling companies operating on the front. I think Canada had 4. There were also railway companies, forestry companies, bridging companies, transport companies. Tunneling companies were usually made up of men that were miners during a happier time. I hope my reply is in the right place.Brocky44 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commander section tab - re: Sir Arthur William Currie

Currie became 1st Canadian Division on 13 September 1915 and Canadian Corps commander on 9 June 1917 (after Sir Julian Byng's elevation to command of Third Army in June 1917). Given Currie was a division Commander for the attack I do not think it would be prudent to include only 1 divisional commander and not the others, if any are to be included at all. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, except Currie, by that time, served the informal role of Strategic Planner for the entire Canadian Corps. Him and Byng effectively planned the entire offensive, and then simply relegated the roles to the other divisional commanders. So, yes, we should probably include the other divisional commanders, I think that Currie has slightly more emphasis because of the major role he served in developing the offensive. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 00:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that Currie played a more senior role, vis-a-vis the other divisional commanders, during the planning process and without doubt served as the "#2" of the corps. However it was certainly not a strictly Byng-Currie planned operation, there were a good number of hands in the cookie jar. The other divisional commander were certainly not simply delegated roles. In fact, Byng gave his divisional commanders a great deal of operational and planning freedom. When it comes right down to it, Byng was the unquestionable commander of the corps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Union Jack/Flag

I have heard that on land the British flag is called the Union Flag, and only at sea is it the Union Jack. Also, would Canada not have fought under the Red Ensign, or was that just WWII? 70.54.126.60 (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

They did fight under the Red Ensign, as per photographs of the 2nd Canadian Division available at the Library Archives Canada. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this line, then, from this article: "Alternatively, it is most historically accurate to note that the Canadian soldiers of the First World War fought for the British Expeditionary Force, and therefore under the Union Jack, rather than any Canadian flag." 70.53.109.112 (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this article? MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)