From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has failed an A-Class review. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Canadian military history task force Dutch military history task force German military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Battle of the Scheldt 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: July 23, 2006

Contents 1 started a major revision, Feb 2007 2 what was here prior to Feb 2007 2.1 Try for featured article status by November 8th anniversary? 2.2 Rating 2.3 Infatuate I & II 2.4 Good Article nomination has failed 2.5 Detail missing 2.6 German POWs 2.7 Fair use rationale for Image:Furnesflooding.jpg

[edit] started a major revision, Feb 2007

Hi all, As of Feb 9, 2007, I've started a draft of a revision for the Battle of the Scheldt. From time to time, if I am able to make progress, I will copy the whole thing over to the page. I'd appreciate any feedback on it as it grows. It will definitely build heavily on contributions already made, but I am looking to shorted and clarify and reference more.

[edit] what was here prior to Feb 2007

Hey everyone. Worked on this all day, mostly gleemed from the Canadian Government Veterans website. I'd like to see more information and data on the German side. Anyone who speaks german or who has an interest in the topic, I'd love to have your help polishing this up. Cheers.

--Oldsoul 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

I would like to thank you and everyone else for makig this article I started it, but didn't have time to actually make an article. Also I believe there should be a reference to the Canadians being called the "water rats" for their fighting through the scheldt, but I don't know where to put it. If anyone would like to add that please do so. Thanks. say1988 July 6, 2005 14:08 (UTC)

I'm not usually one to take credit, but you're very welcome! I took a great deal of pleasure in expanding this, and I hope it's up to snuff. My uncle is in the PPCLI and he said that this battle was one of the most important of the war, but yet most udnernoted. I was exploring through all the world war 2 related pages and categories that are now linked, and there were no ref. to the Scheldt. It was an honor and a priviledge, and I invite anyone who has more details about the german side to contribute to what I've done.

For the honor... --Oldsoul July 6, 2005 20:47 (UTC)

Removed quotes section and integrated them into the text. I note that quote sections do not appear in any other battle page I know of, so to say consistant I removed it. Added an after math section. Pehaps it and conclusion should be merged probably under the heading of aftermath to more closely resemble other battle pages, but Aftermath probably needs editing. More edits by me should come soon, but don't have time now. I am also trying to at least add stubs, hopfully more, to some of the red links. I tried to add references but it didn't seem to work out, perhaps someone who knows what to do can do it.say1988 00:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

mergerd "conclusions" and my new "aftermath" sections under title aftermath, similar to other battle articles. say1988 17:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Expanded the introduction to include a summary of the results of the battle. Based on the results being in the intro for other battle pages and I believe the intro should be a short summary of the entire article.say1988 03:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the recent effort made to build a narrative into this article, however, I must stress that we should not build it too strongly in favour of the allies perspective. That is to say, many of the edits that have been made in the last couple of weeks since my last major addition, while overall productive in nature, have seemed to mainly draw out obvious points or over-emphasize certain aspects of the allied operation(s).

My gut feeling is to revert to previous edits in the history and re-build/edit in baby steps, but I feel that in the interest of the wikipedia we should establish the dialogue here first and then take a few steps back in the sections which might need scaling back. For example, despite the other pages in this campaign, we are setting a bit of a prescedent in this article, so I believe one of the first steps is to re-establish a seperate "quotes" section. The article reads a bit heavy in it's current form and I think needs to be simplified.

Thoughts?

Oldsoul 10:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering what part is "building too strongly in favour of the Allies?" I probably just cant see it because it was likely my changes. Though at time precendent is required to be set, an important part of an encyclopedia is uniformity of similar articles and on other pages major changes have been made to that. Though I do think a quote section would be very nice, I don't think it should be in unless you get more than a few people and consider doing the same for other similar articles. It might make sense to add it again and then se what other people think.say1988 18:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good article. I just wanted to comment that the convention for the naming of military units is "nationality-number-unit", i.e. Canadian 2nd Division, not "2nd Canadian Division".Grant65 (Talk) 22:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Which convention is that? The Canadian official history uses the latter form exclusively, and if fact, so do the General Orders that created the division.Michael Dorosh 13:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you make the edits yet? Oldsoul 08:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Try for featured article status by November 8th anniversary?

Hi. I've just read this article for the first time, and I'm very impressed. Good work! Checking the current Wikipedia:Featured articles, there are no major Canadian battles listed -- although the Military history of Canada and the Battle of Normandy have both reached featured status.

The Battle of the Scheldt was one of the most important Canadian contributions in WWII, and I'd like to see it recognized. Should we try to reach featured status by November 8, the anniversary date of the end of all German resistance?

Well I'm moving back to Edmonton to Toronto this weekend but during the next week, I'd love to delve into the Scheldt again. Not sure what else needs to be explored to make a good candidate, but I'm certainly willing to take some direction from those that have worked on featured articling before.Oldsoul 09:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I have given this one A because I think it has the potential for FA status, although I believe more on the German side would be necessary for it to reach that level. Andreas 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in the attack on hoogerheide because i lived at the place. I do read german,(so if you put links i may have a look some day) i think the germans don't have many resources about all events. Also the allies were not overly glad with their succes after they lost (est.) 200000 canadians (in one of these stupid allied straightforward attacks, they could just have waited a day eg.). Nevertheless it was a catastrophe for the germans. They lost about 70-120000 man trying to defend the high ground. It was so thoroughly defended(local info), they had expected better perhaps. However , i assume partly because of the terrains texture (sand) and the overall flat characteristics of the netherlands an introductory artillery/air bombardment is estimated (locally) to have killed 70000 germans still in their foxholes/trenches. When people would build new houses in the area, it was not uncommon to dig up whole rows of intact germans 3 mtr deep under the sand. "clutching their guns" like one of the workers told me , 70000 man ready to fight, burried in the sand, nothing much to be proud of. I must say that what i know concerns Hoogerheide/Woensdrecht area not necessarily Korteven, i just don't know that. One excuse for the lack of information may be that the fighting went on immediatly from there in the direction of Bergen op zoom, there may have not been much left to report anything, the allies that occupied the plave probably didn't have a faint idea about the nr of germans burried. Locals also told me of impressive allied airsuperiority on that day(s), for me the whole story only started to make sense a couple of years ago when i read somewhere the germans admitted some 100000 man lost, and how these canadians attacked, i mean , at least there was something going on, i have always thought what did the germans think they would achieve by being there and dying. The high ground being a sandy ridge, 20-30mtrs higher then the land of antwerp, oh well that is hindsight.80.57.243.16 19:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infatuate I & II

Should these get their own article? If so, I should think that the section here could form a good basis of it. Andreas 15:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

While the article is very well written, it unfortunately contains barely any references and as such it cannot become a good article. Although inline citations would be preferable this is not essential, but you do need to cite the sources that you get your information from or, alternatively, that you use to verify the information in the article. It has been added to the appropriate WikiProject for referencing. -- Underneath-it-All 16:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think the article would benefit from more clarity--dates and references, more exact lists of troops and places, and in fact, it needs to be shortened because a reader new to the subject is possibly going to get lost. Yet I praise all the work that has gone into this until now; seems like a real labor of love.Harborsparrow 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• • P S - I got involved because I discovered that this was my father's first battle in WWII. Although he seldom spoke about the war at all, he did tell us that when he first joined the army, he and his buddies thought it was all great fun, but then, the first battle they got into (which he didn't identify at the time), all his buddies were killed--except him--and then he broke down and cried, the only time I ever saw him cry or speak of the war at all. And I know his division was in some horrific fights after this one. Thanks to all of you who've worked on this. Oh--he was in U S 104th Infantry Division.Harborsparrow 05:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detail missing

If I'm not mistaken, were there not elements of French commandos who also participated in this battle? If so, they have been left out. 15:06 , 8/15/2007

[edit] German POWs

The article lists the German POWs at 41,000. As no one has disputed that I transfered that number to the summary box since it had German Casualties as unknown but the numbers of POWs stated in the concluding paragraph. -- Wokelly (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Furnesflooding.jpg

Image:Furnesflooding.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)