Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Western Front (World War I)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Western Front (World War I)

World War I has significantly shaped the modern world, and the Western Front proved the decisive theater of this war. This article now covers the entire history of the front at a high level, with all the notable offensives as well as commentary on the strategies, tactics and technologies involved. It concludes with a discussion of the consequences. — RJH 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very nice article. Two questions, though:

1. Do we really need two huge see-also templates at the bottom?

• I would have no problem with a single template. But it's a cross-page issue, so if the bottom template gets removed then somebody will probably slap it back in again. — RJH

1. Could you perhaps add an {{Infobox Military Conflict}} and/or the appropriate campaignboxes? —Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Okay it's added, but I haven't been able to find western-front-specific numbers for some of the boxes. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• I avoided that because the other operations-level pages lacked a similar template. *shrug* — RJH

• Second template was commented out. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support with Comment - The leads is perhaps too long. I know usually we encourage longer leads, but this one seems a bit excessive. Of course, that's just my opinion. Other than that, though, it looks great, so I'll give it my support. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Okay I tried to thin the introduction down without losing the specifics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice work! I think the lead is just right. However, can you add some wikilinks to the image captions (where applicable). Gflores ^Talk 19:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• comment: It might be better to replace the huge see also template with a portal of ww1 on a later date
• Support. --Myles Long/cDc 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

*Some objections Take care of the following:

• Sudden introduction of "The French offensive plan, Plan XVII ..." in a section that tells us it's about the German invasion of France and Belgium. Huh? Give it some context, preferably from the linked article.
  • Unfortunately a number of new entries have been added since the FA nomination. This was one such. I think it's being addressed. RJH
    • Doesn't look like it yet. We don't know, from this article, what we know in the Plan XVII article, why the French wanted to capture Alsace back, and how that set them up for the initial success of the Schlieffen Plan. I think right there at the start we could use some explanation of what both sides' ultimate strategic objectives, their plans for winning the war, were. Right now this Plan XVII stuff feels like it's looking for somewhere to go.
      • I fixed it, I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

*Consistent date format and metric/English. It has "March 10" (my birthday, but so what?) at the beginning of the second graf of "1915 — Stalemate" and then "By 15 May ..." later. It should have the continental style throughout as per the subject matter. Ditto with metric: how many tonnes is "168 tons" equal to? (or 450 tonnes?) Also, "35-4500 yards" without a metric equivalent? The examples are too numerous to list.

• • Consistent "date" format? That seems like more a matter of literary license.
    • Well, either the months come first consistently or the days. But right now it's a mishmash of both styles.
  • Interestingly the English-language histories from the war were primarily pre-metric. That's probably why you're seeing those units. RJH
    • Not a problem, but both English and metric needs to be used.
      • Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• "The German Chief of Staff, Erich von Falkenhayn, believed that although a breakthrough might no longer be possible, the French could be defeated if they suffered enough casualties". Well duh, kill them all or nearly all and they won't have an army anymore ... is that meant to be "would surrender"?
  • Falkenhayn's stated goal was to "bleed France white". Yeah it's a no-brainer, but it still needed to be said. I could not definitively state whether a defeated France would have surrendered or resorted to guerilla warfare. RJH
    • I put in "capitulate," which is probably acceptably ambiguous here. But what does submarine warfare directly have to do with winning land battles, BTW? Falkenhayn was Chief of Staff, yes, but if his naval strategy was to complement his land game that should be explained.
      • Okay clarified slightly. I don't think it needs much coverage here. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• More wikification. The article as a whole links mainly battles, dates and people. There's a lot more in there (aerial photography, for instance) that should and could be in blue. Three whole grafs in the middle of "1916" have nought but a single footnote.
  • Possibly. I've seen people complain about over-wikification of articles, so I focused on the linking the topics that seemed like logical drill-downs.
    • It's always a judgement call. I just think there could be more ... it feels a little dry as is.
      • Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • By grafs I assume you mean paragraphs?
    • Yes. Not zeppelins :-).
  • Is there a footnote quota that needs to be met? RJH
    • Every reference that needs it, as always.
      • Done. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Use Hindenburg and Ludendorff's full names on first reference (not at the bottom of "1918"). And spell Hindenburg properly and consistently.
  • Fixed. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• "The new leaders soon recognized that the battles of Verdun and the Somme had depleted the offensive capabilities of the German army along the western front. They decided that the German army would go over to the strategic defensive for most of 1917 along the western front, while the Central powers would attack elsewhere." Clean this sentence up a bit, as well as most references to "along the western front" unless, as you are here, drawing a distinction between it and theatres elsewhere.
  • Your statement seems ambiguous, so I am unclear about what actually needs cleaning up. This paragraph regards the situation on the Western Front in the context of the Central powers' war strategy. So the distinction is needed IMO. RJH
    • Yeah, but can you do the two sentences without repeating "along the western front"? It's a pretty heavy phrase to have to repeat in back-to-back sentences unless you can't avoid it.
      • Okay. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• "The battle had also seen the first massed use of German stosstruppen on the western front ..." I shouldn't have to click on the link to find out what Strostruppen are.
  • Note added about infiltration tactics. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• "By summer 300,000 American soldiers were arriving each month and would reach 2.1 million by November." Bad grammar, clean up.
  • Fixed I hope. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• As a whole the article is a bit wordy in some places.
  • Some places? The same could be said of the Gettysburg Address. ;-) What do you consider too wordy? Again it seems like a matter of personal taste and style. RJH
    • I mean it could get phrased more efficiently. I'll try to work on that.
• Link to the film versions of All Quiet on the Western Front as well.
  • The linked page covers both. Is that not sufficient? RJH
    • My fault ... didn't scroll down enough and assumed. Still, there should be separate articles.
• And why is the second of the huge templates under "External Links?" This is confusing. Would it be possible to put all the links in one big box, or put the second one up near the top? Daniel Case 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be more than happy to see the second big template removed, or "smerged" with the first template. But that's a cross-article issue. A removed template might just get slapped back in at a later date. Thanks for the feedback. :) — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand. Daniel Case 06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I commented the second template out with a hidden note. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Support. I think it's ready now. Sorry to take such a long time to get back on it. Daniel Case 05:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Daniel Case raises some good point. The lead is also a bit long, as is the sections (perhaps having a main article for each of them?) In addition, the "External link" section seems badly placed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm leaning a little toward oppose myself now. This semi-chaotic edit/review process is a tad discouraging. :-/

As for the length of the introduction, well I believe the peer review said the old intro was too short. It figures. I'm reasonably satisfied that the introduction is proportionate to the comparable size of this pretty-lengthy article. Thanks. — RJH 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the issues have been addressed now, I hope. — RJH 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to see some kind of war/battlebox, tweaked of course to be a 'theatrebox' :) And surely more pictures can be added?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, but the numbers will remain incomplete unless somebody can find a data source. Most sources cover the entire war, rather than the western front in particular — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Fix the length of sections. 1916 and 1917 in particular are a bit too long. --The1exile 04:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I broke up the sections to make it a little more palatable. But people keep on adding to the article. — RJH 18:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)