Talk:Operation Tractable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Tractable article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Operation Tractable is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Date: 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion 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 German military history task force Polish military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

[edit] British forces in this operation?

I know the canucks and poles fought during this op but was there any British units involved?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it was almost entirely Canadian & Polish forces. I will, however, check my sources again to be sure. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Tractable/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

[edit] GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written WEAK FAIL

1.1 Prose

This would benefit from a light copyedit, although it's mostly fine. I don't mind going over this if it will be helpful.

1.2 Manual of Style

No major issues here; I made a few tweaks as I read through, and things seem up to GA standard. However:

• The links to external websites in the citations should be formatted (use of {{citeweb}} template is recommended, though not required) to include access dates.
• There is no need to include the Juno Beach Centre in the References section - just use a formatted link (per above) in the cite.
• The article is over-wikilinked in places. Generally only the first occurrence of a word should be linked, and then only if it adds to the article somehow. I noticed, for example, that 'Falaise Gap' is linked multiple times, as are many of the units (eg 'Polish 1st Armoured Division' etc). I should perhaps add that I don't see a problem with linking words from both the lead and the first occurrence in the article body - it can help the reader by saving lots of scrolling ;)
• There's also no real need for the External link to montormel.org, as it's used as a source and linked from there.

2 Factual accuracy WEAK FAIL

Only a couple of things here:

• There is an apparent inconsistency throughout the article in the figures given for German losses. I'm not sure what to suggest, as you know the sources better than I, but things like the end of August 21 saying "The Falaise Gap had been closed, and over 100,000 men were trapped in the Pocket.", then the next section stating "Conservative estimates for the number of German soldiers captured in the Falaise Pocket approach 50,000." somehow need reconciling.

Ah, guess I should have been a bit more explicit there. 100,000 were trapped in the pocket, but a large number managed to escape. Keep in mind, also, that figures for the number of captured Germans show incredible variety (as outlined in the "Casualties" subsection.) I'll reformat that to be a bit more explicit. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Granatstein is given as a reference book in References, but hasn't been cited anywhere in the Footnotes section. Was it used at all?

Ah, didn't catch that before. No, Granatstein wasn't used for the refs (I had intended to, then didn't). I'll remove that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

3 Coverage PASS

Good, broad coverage of the battle. No issues here.

4 Neutrality PASS

No evidence of POV.

5 Stability PASS

No concerns here.

6 Images PASS

Looks good - nice selection, well presented and captioned, with appropriate licenses.

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period may be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)