Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/George S. Patton

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George S. Patton edit

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)


I'm very excited to bring this up here. I expect to have a time of it with "Old Blood and Guts" at FAC, so all thoughts will be appreciated. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very comprehensive and well developed article - great work. I have the following comments:

  • "Patton commanded some of the the first U.S. troops into the war" - large US Army and Marine forces had been fighting in the Pacific for almost a year at this point; I presume that you mean 'European theatre of the war' or similar
  • "Fearing that he would test poorly" - this is a bit awkward
  • "after continued letter-writing and exams" - which exams? (did Patton undertake the West Point entrance exams)
  • "For the remainder of his career at the academy, Patton excelled as a cadet, though his academic performance remained average. " - is it appropriate to say he 'excelled' when he didn't do well in one of the core areas?
  • "where he learned fencing techniques under" - this is a bit awkward
  • "though the expedition was politically hampered and did not see much action in that time" - likewise
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really: what does 'politically hampered' mean in this context? The goal of the operation was never to conquer Mexico. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've further clarified this. —Ed!(talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taken as Pershing's aide-de-camp" - this is a bit unclear
  • "Patton oversaw the training of arriving American troops in Paris until September," - likewise
  • "then moved to Chaumont and assigned as post adjutant" - is there a missing word here?
  • 'Patton' is used in almost every sentence in the para which begins with 'On 10 November 1917 Patton'
  • Ditto the para which starts with 'Patton's brigade was then moved 60 miles' (including twice in once sentence)
  • "In this time he developed a belief that tanks should not be used as infantry support, but rather as an independent fighting force" - did he reach this view independently, or was he influenced by the other military officers in the UK and elsewhere advocating this view?
    • Nothing's been exactly specific about that. At the very beginning of World War II he evolved these thoughts with Chaffee, but just after WWI I think he was just thinking of these things himself. —Ed!(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be worth checking reference works on the development of US armoured warfare doctrine, which should discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've put a little more in to make it clear. The budget in the interwar era stopped armored warfare development, but Patton thought ahead. Only he, Chafee, Eisenhower, and J. Walter Christie were pushing hard on developing Armor doctrine, but even they sort of let it slide until another war was stirring. —Ed!(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was nearly killed when he was kicked by a horse which fractured his leg, and he developed phlebitis" - also a bit awkward
  • Why did he only command the 5th Cavalry Regiment for six months?
    • At this point, Marshall had bigger plans for him than a regimental command, so I think he was grooming him for flag officer positions. —Ed!(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "executing two days of planned objectives in nine hours" - this is a bit unclear
  • When was Patton transferred to prepare for Operation Torch?
  • "in landings centered around Morocco" - that's a bit vague (and I think that all of the landings under Patton's command were in Morocco)
  • "removed General Orlando Ward, commander of the 1st Armored Division, after its lackluster performance with the 1st Armored Division" - this is a bit repetitive and unclear
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interestingly enough, in his recent book The Generals Thomas E. Ricks states that Ward was the only divisional commander Patton ever relieved (which made him somewhat unusual among US army-level commanders, though Ricks doesn't comment on what this meant). Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I noted this in the "As viewed by" section, it helps establish Patton's actions were at times different from what his image seemed. —Ed!(talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After ensuring the U.S. forces would continue to fight to the end of the Tunisian campaign" - what's meant by this? - was there a proposal for them to go into reserve?
    • He was worried they'd be sidelined or not used further once he was removed from the command and wasn't there to vouch for them. —Ed!(talk) 15:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be good to add this to the article Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "any plan to invade Europe from the north" - do you mean 'west' here? Northern Europe is normally applied to Scandinavia and surrounds
  • "The FUSAG command was in reality an intricately constructed "phantom" army of decoys and props " - and fake signals traffic
  • "In its advance from Avranches to Argentan, the Third Army traversed vast distances, covering 60 miles (97 km) in just two weeks" 'vast distances' seems an overstatement here
  • " Flexibility, improvisation, and adaptation were cardinal requirements for Third Army supply echelons of an armored division seeking to exploit a breakthrough" - this is a bit unclear (and the Third Army consisted of more than just armoured divisions)
  • "Patton's army was instrumental in closing the Falaise Pocket in mid-August." - after the US Army forces had dragged their feet on doing so
  • "and diversion of resources to moving the Communications Zone," - this is unclear
  • Why is Patton's poor performance during the fighting around Metz skimmed over? Historians tend to be critical of his leadership during this period.
    • Added more. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why only reference the views of German generals involved in the fighting? Historians have evaluated Patton's actions here. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Axelrod doesn't discuss it. Put in D'Este's thoughts. —Ed!(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one day ahead of Montgomery's crossing at the Remagen Bridge" - I'm pretty sure that the units responsible for this were part of the US-led 12th Army Group
    • Yes, but the point is Patton wanted to cross the Rhine before the British did. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but Monty had nothing to do with the crossing at Remagen Bridge, which wasn't within his area of responsibility. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but Eisenhower had intended Montgomery's army cross the Remagen bridge that day, and Patton's forces were scheduled to construct a pontoon bridge and cross afterward. Patton saw it as a slight for him to "follow" the British into Germany, so he disobeyed the schedule and crossed before he was supposed to. —Ed!(talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that's actually correct. The Remagen bridge was in the 12th Army Group's area of responsibility, and wasn't well situated to support a major offensive. Monty had his heart set on a major assault crossing to the north which was carried out as Operation Plunder on 23 March. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm positive it is not correct. Remagen was in the First Army zone, so neither Montgomery nor Patton. The Monday-morning quarterbacks have queried Patton's decision to make two major river crossings when only one was required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Removed the part about Montgomery. Someone's taken that reference from the library so I'll have to go back in a few weeks to figure out exactly what I misunderstood. I'm just leaving it out for now. —Ed!(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an uninformed German soldier putting up resistance" - this is a bit awkward
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it isn't; you'd removed the 'an' when its needed, and the issue is the redundancy and lack of clarity within the phrase "am uninformed German soldier putting up resistance" Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but was stopped from reaching Prague before V-E Day " - what stopped the army's advance?
  • "It had advanced farther and faster than any army in military history," - is this actually true? It sounds dubious (compared to, for instance, the German advance in the southern USSR during the summers of 1941 and 1942, the Mongol armies, etc)
  • "With a normal strength of around 250,000–300,000 men, the Third Army had killed, wounded, or captured some 1,811,388 German soldiers" - this is comparing a 'stock' (point in time) figure with a 'flow' figure (a figure which covers a time period), which is a bad idea. The Third Army would have had many more men than 300,000 this pass through its ranks, especially given the high casualty rates the Allied infantry units suffered during the winter of 1944-45.
    • Moved the Third Army size elsewhere. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first tank designed after the war" - the first American tank
  • "Other actors who portrayed Patton included " - this implies that no-one will portray him again ;)
  • "As media scrutiny on Patton increased, however, his bluntness became a liability..." - this repeats material previously covered in the article
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it isn't; this repetitive material is still there. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed this statement. Is there another you're referring to? —Ed!(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oberstleutnant Horst Freiherr von Wangenheim..." - what's the relevance of the views of a Lieutenant Colonel who held a staff position in a third rate German division?
    • Wanted to establish that it wasn't just German generals who had a professional respect for him, Patton was respected by everyday German troops as well. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The worst commander in the US Army could have thrashed a Volksgrenadier division (the formation of such hopeless units manned by children and old men is regarded as having been one of the crimes of the Nazi regime in modern Germany), so this isn't a meaningful assessment. Why not discuss how modern historians and military leaders evaluate Patton? (note also that the postwar recollections of German generals are often considered suspect given the context in which these assessments were made). Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe not the worst... the 18th Volksgrenadier Division gave the 106th Infantry Divison a fearful hiding in the Battle of the Bulge. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've pushed the less notable German leaders' opinions into a footnote. Will put in some contemporary opinions, though the subsequent U.S. military leaders tend to be singularly enthusiastic about Patton. —Ed!(talk) 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd suggest adding in the views of historians as well before this goes to FAC, but that does the job as it covers the main views of Patton. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please replace the David Irving reference - he's a proven fabricator, and not a reliable source on anything Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't realize his reputation. Removed his refs. —Ed!(talk) 15:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good Old Blood and Guts.

  • Infobox:
    • 3/3 Cavalry Regiment -> 3rd Squadron, 3rd Cavalry
    • 2/2 Armored Division -> 2nd Armored Brigade
    • Can we re-jig the WWII campaigns into the form an American would expect to find them:
    • Lifesaving Medal is missing
    • Here's my list of his foreign medals: Grand Cross of Ouissam Alaouite (Morocco); The Most Honorable Order of the Bath (England); Commander in the Legion of Honor (France); Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor (France); Order of the British Empire; Grand Officer of the Order of Leopold w/Palm (Belgium); Croix de Guerre (Belgium); Order of Adolphe of Nassau, Grand Croix (Luxembourg); Croix de Guerre (Luxembourg); Order of Koutusoff, 1st Grade (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
      • To both of these, I thought it best to only list a few major awards (ie, those that have Wiki categories for recipients) and the rest of his honors could be listed at Service summary of George S. Patton as you did with MacArthur. —Ed!(talk) 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you'll find some of these do have categories for recipients. (And the Czech one is missing from my list). Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added some of them in. —Ed!(talk) 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
    • most well known sounds British (British "most well know" equals US "well known"?) Suggest "best known".
    • Patton saw his first combat -> "He first saw combat"
    • first commanding the U.S. tank school there where?
    • wounded in combat I think "wounded in combat" is a tautology.
    • Rising through the ranks, Patton commanded -> "he commanded" Also: with the next sentence, we have two sentences starting with "Patton commanded" in a row. Consider re-wording one of them.
    • commanded some of the the first U.S. troops into the European theater "into" is the wrong world here. What I think you mean is wrong.
    • Link "Bastogne" to Siege of Bastogne rather than the town.
    • I think it should mention his relief rather than simply noting his command of the Fifteenth Army
  • Early life and education
    • Ruth Wilson - Did his mother not take his father's name, as was the custom at the time?
    • Patton had one sister, Anne. Younger or older? And did he have any brothers?
    • While Patton's own father graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), he did not pursue a military career Subject confusion here. "he" still refers to GSP Jr. Suggest "Patton's father graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), but did not pursue a military career"
    • As such, the Patton family was prosperous You haven't introduced anyone wealthy yet apart from Benjamin Davis Wilson, and his relation to Patton's mother is unstated. Suggest deleting "As such"
    • Patton struggled with reading and writing (dyslexia) Can you improve this phrasing?
    • Historians Carlo D'Este and Alan Axelrod note in their biographies of Patton that these difficulties were likely the result of undiagnosed dyslexia Either you have misrepresented them. or they don't know what dyslexia is.
      • How do you figure? Both historians think he had a hard time learning to read and write because he had dyslexia, but he was never formally diagnosed. —Ed!(talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patton met Beatrice Banning Ayer, daughter of Boston industrialist Frederick Ayer. the daughter
    • Note 3 serves no purpose as the reader, as the younger Patton's bio is only a click away anyway. Consider replacing it with an explanation as to why he was George IV instead of George III.
    • Patton was accepted to Princeton University but eventually decided on the Virginia Military Institute. Patton attended VMI from 1903–1904 Two sentences starting with "Patton", you should be using "he" anyway, the abbreviation VMI has been used before, so why alternate, and I'm not at at all fond of the ndash here. Consider rewriting these two sentences.
    • He was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the cavalry. -> "... on 11 June 1909."
  • Junior officer
    • "Second Lieutenant Patton's first posting was with the U.S. 15th Cavalry Regiment at Fort Sheridan, Illinois" Recommend dropping "Second Lieutenant", "U.S." and "Regiment
    • Add the Olympic portal
    • Patton redesigned saber combat doctrine for the U.S. cavalry, delete "U.S." Should you mention that he wroteSaber Regulations, 1914?
      • Since this graph discusses French cavalry, I want to make it clear that Patton only revolutionized U.S. cavalry doctrine, not all cavalry doctrine (It sounds like U.S. saber combat technique was behind that of other nations at this point) —Ed!(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • U.S. 8th Cavalry Regiment Delete "U.S." and "Regiment"
    • instability in Mexico might boil over into a full-scale war A civil war in Mexico, or a war with the United States?
    • but that event was cancelled with the outbreak of World War I That is not true.
      • Changed "with the outbreak of" to "due to," but otherwise that article backs up that the event was cancelled, and the war was the cause. —Ed!(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link "aide"
    • he was promoted to first lieutenant ... in the 10th Cavalry
    • Can you double check footnote 46? My sources have him with the 7th Cavalry at Camp Stewart, TX
      • That may be the case; my source doesn't say where he returned to in February 1917, only that he returned. He didn't go straight to Front Royal, that was just where he was told he would be posted next. What's your source? —Ed!(talk) 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cullum (1930). Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only reference I can find for that name is " Biographical Register of the Officers and Graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point New York Since Its Establishment in 1802: Supplement Volume VII 1920–1930" which doesn't mention Patton. —Ed!(talk) 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I
    • left almost immediately for Europe Redundancy here - you give the actual dates.
      • Removed "almost immediately"
    • Now you link aide. Should have linked it before. Unlink here.
    • Patton was promoted to major on 23 January 1918 Can you double-check this date?
      • Mis-typed. Was January 26. —Ed!(talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • His DSC citation reads:

      "For extraordinary heroism in action near Cheppy, France, September 26, 1918. He displayed conspicuous courage, coolness, energy, and intelligence in directing the advance of his brigade down the valley of the Aire. Later he rallied a force of disorganized infantry and led it forward behind the tanks under heavy machine-gun and artillery fire until he was wounded. Unable to advance further, he continued to direct the operations of his unit until all arrangements for turning over the command were completed.

      • Clarified in the prose. —Ed!(talk) 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was actually a colonel in the Tank Corps
    • November 11, 1918 -> 11 November
  • Interwar years
    • reverted to his permanent rank of captain on 30 June 1920, though was promoted to major again the next day -> ... although he was promoted to major again the next day
    • Patton, loathing duty as a staff officer Probably, but he wasn't a staff officer at this time, was he? He was still commander of the 304th Tank Brigade
      • Added the distinction; he loathed being a peacetime staff officer. —Ed!(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • spent much time writing technical papers and giving speeches on his combat experiences at the General Staff College. This belongs in the next paragraph.
    • . In 1923 he attended the Field Officer's Course at the Cavalry School at Fort Riley No, he became a student at the Cavalry School on 1 January 1922, and remained until 6 June 1923.
    • followed by the Command and General Staff College the next year No, he entered the CGSC on 12 September 1923 and graduated on 12 June 1924.
      • Clarified (the source only gave years he graduated) —Ed!(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While on duty in Washington, D.C., in 1919, Patton met Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would play an enormous role in Patton's future career This is out of sequence; move into the first paragraph.
    • How about mentioning how he saved three boys from drowning on 21 August 1923, for which he was awarded the Lifesaving Medal?
      • Added in, though my source didn't note the exact day. —Ed!(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was temporarily appointed to the General Staff Corps in Boston, Massachusetts, before being reassigned as G-1 and G-2 of the Hawaiian Division No, his next assignment was as Assistant Chief of Staff, G-l, I Corps Area, from July 1924 to March 1925
      • Can't find this in D'Este's bio. What's your source? —Ed!(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10 years before the attack -> ten years
    • Patton served under Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur as a major commanding 600 troops of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment I don't think that the reader will follow this. Mac was CoS and brought in troops for the purpose of dealing with the Bonus marchers. Patton was executive officer of the 3rd Cavalry.
    • Nice to see Jean Gordon rates a mention, although you pass over the fact that the affair continued for the next twelve years, that she was a Red Cross aide at Third Army HQ, ended only with his death, and that she committed suicide soon after that. (Where's David Petreus when you need him?)
    • U.S. 5th Cavalry Regiment -> 5th Cavalry
    • but he was reassigned to Fort Myer again in December "...as commander of the 3rd Cavalry"
    • Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, who ensured Patton was eligible for promotion. How did he do this?
      • It's not specific, but essentially Marshall was prepared to advance Patton quickly to get him in a command position when armored units formed. —Ed!(talk) 03:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War II
    • How about a sentence of explanation about how the Hell on Wheels Division was organized? The armored brigade structure will be unfamiliar to many readers.
  • North African campaign
    • Patton was assigned to help plan and command Operation Torch in summer of 1942 No, as commander of I Armored Corps, he was in charge of the Western Task Force. Sggest deleting "and command". He was in London for the purpose from August to November.
    • During this time, he reported to British Army commander Harold Alexander, and came into conflict with Alexander's officers for the lack of close air support for his troops Alexander commanded the 18th Army Group. I don't think Patton was in conflict with Alexander and his staff as with Arthur Coningham and his. Also, Coningham was right, something not easily gleaned from the article.
    • On 17 May, the U.S. 1st Infantry Division took Gafsa No, that was on 17 March
    • At the same time, Patton removed General Orlando Ward No, Ward was relieved on 5 April
    • After ensuring the U.S. forces would continue to fight to the end of the Tunisian campaign I would really prefer that this sentence be dropped. I don't think that there was too much doubt that American soldiers would continue to fight.
      • Reworded per Nick-D's comments. —Ed!(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patton relinquished command of II Corps on 15 April, and returned to I Armored Corps.
      • Reworded per Nick-D's comments. —Ed!(talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sicily
    • After landing, Patton's command was expanded and formed into the Seventh United States Army No, I Armored Corps officially changed its designation at 0001 on 10 July, before the landing.
    • Initially ordered to protect the British forces' rear flank Oxymoron - "rear flank" - you mean left flank.
    • Nice list of controversies, but there is one more: the relief of Terry de la Mesa Allen, Sr., and Theodore Roosevelt Jr.
    • In September, Bradley, who was Patton's junior in both rank and experience, was selected to command the First Army forming in England to prepare for Operation Overlord. Link First Army. Actually, Bradley was also selected to command the First United States Army Group.
    • On 26 January 1944 Patton was formally given command of the Third Army in England, a newly arrived unit Link Third Army, and an army is a formation, not a unit.
    • As a result of Patton's actions, the German 15th Army remained at Pas de Calais I would prefer to say "Operation Fortitude" rather than "Patton's actions"Curiously, this is the article's last mention of deception operations. I would say a bit more.
    • Patton flew into Europe a month later and returned to combat duty. A think you'll find that Britain is part of Europe, regardless of what the locals say.
    • Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson "Secretary of War" has already been linked.
  • Normandy
    • Patton led the Third during the late stages of Operation Cobra, the campaign to break out from the Normandy hedgerowsTechnically true, but from England. He did not participate in Normandy (ended 24 July) or Cobra (ended 31 July). Delete this sentence
    • Link "attacked west into Brittany" to Battle of Brest
    • Patton's army was instrumental in closing the Falaise Pocket in mid-August, in spite of delays from other U.S. commanders Nick asked you to fix this, but it's still wrong.
    • assisting in trapping several hundred thousand German soldiers in the Chambois pocket, between Falaise and Argentan Chambois pocket -> Falaise Pocket.
    • Move the second paragraph of the next section (about XIX TAC) here from the next paragraph
      • I moved it to the end of this section. Is that what you're looking for? —Ed!(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, XIX TAC also operated the P-51 Mustang.
    • Consider moving the bit about logistics into the next paragraph. Why do we mention Muller but not Koch when we talk about Ultra? Or, for that matter, Gaffey? While not mention them all?
      • Done, I think? I might be confused which paragraph you mean at this point. —Ed!(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fold note 4 into the text.
      • I had it there for awhile but it was very awkward and couldn't fit easily. —Ed!(talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lorraine Campaign
    • Patton's offensive, however, came to a halt on 31 August 1944 Fine, but how about a brief mention of the advance from Normandy? And what about the Battle of Brest?
    • Patton's forces were close to the Siegfried Line No, they weren't
      • Added "Patton believed that his forces were close enough to the Siegfred Line..." —Ed!(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The French 2nd Armored Division had recently been transferred from the Third Army, and many of the unit's soldiers believed they were still part of the latter Delete this sentence
    • Who's the black guy? And why is the picture so small? Add his name to the caption
      • Enlarged and renamed. —Ed!(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of the Bulge
    • Controversy here: Cox predicted the German attack.
      • Can't find mention of it in any of the Patton biographies I have. —Ed!(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advance into Germany
    • On 14 April 1945 Patton was promoted to a full General, a promotion long advocated by Stimson in recognition of Patton's battle accomplishments during 1944 decapitalise General. Some editors don't like "full"
    • Third Army was ordered away from Berlin and toward Bavaria and Czechoslovakia Third Army was never headed toward Berlin; that lay in Ninth Army's zone.
  • Postwar
    • Could mention what posts Patton wanted to hold
      • From what my sources say, he was pretty unenthusiastic about any post after the war, and after he was relieved as military governor he basically considering retirement. —Ed!(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll get to work on these and let you know when I've completed them all. —Ed!(talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've responded to all of your comments above. I'll await further replies. —Ed!(talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed a few things. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've made a few runs through the article. These are my edits: [1]. A couple of things I wasn't sure of:
    • Edits look good. Thanks for your help! —Ed!(talk) 13:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent caps and slightly confusing (was it the Chambois pocket or the Falaise pocket?): " in the Chambois pocket, between Falaise and Argentan, the Falaise Pocket"
  • this might need to be reworded: " Later that month, Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower toured the Merkers salt mine as well as the Ohrdruf concentration camp, an incident which caused Patton great disgust." (this makes it sound like the tour caused Patton disgust, but I think you mean that the concentration camp itself was what disgusted him). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/George_S._Patton&oldid=1136064711"