Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Northern France campaign/archive1
SandyGeorgia followup edit
- Hi Sandy, at the risk of coming across as a Wiki-lawyer, I don't think that it works like that. Currently the article has been promoted to A class by consensus at MilHist. We can't just revert that. Anyone can challenge an A class status (similar to but simpler than FAR), but I don't think that this would be entertained while an FAC was open. So any qualms could be addressed during FAC, in an attempt to reach a consensus to promote. Or it could end up being archived, and any issues could be addressed off-FAC - possibly via PR, or less formally - an A class review may also be invoked, but essentially this would be a separate issue.
- I am, you will appreciate, just flagging up the theoretical possibilities here. Peacemaker67, who has far more experience than me, may have a clearer idea of what could, or should, be done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your point, and don't consider it Wikilawyering, but there is nonetheless a concern about how to proceed. It is surprising that a statement in Wikivoice without attribution, "Eisenhower was wrong" (about a widely known WWII controversy about which much has been written and there has been much debate hence is by no means straightforward) made it through A-class and GA review without raising red flags (@Hog Farm:)-- and was making it through FAC as well. I don't want to proceed with prose nitpicking until I am convinced that the sourcing is strong here, and any potential British bias has been addressed-- possibly in all three articles, as my first brief foray into the sources I do have at hand revealed there may be issues. (And I say that as someone whose professional background leads me to acknowledge the British use of operations research techniques to aid in developing winning logistics and strategies for WWII.) I don't want to plow forward with prose analysis until this is resolved, nor do I want to have to put the weeks of work into examining sources myself that I had to do the last time red flags went off after A-class. But one of my less substantial concerns about the article is that in several places it was difficult to tell which was being talked about (Brit/American), and there is a lack of WP:RED (for example, an important general, which country's War Dept, and why is there not an article or red link on the Broad vs. narrow front controversy-- which is a topic in and of itself?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Overall, perhaps we could rethink spotchecking (at FAC and at A-class) nominations from experienced nominators, particularly when there are red flags in the article. Whether we should do that now at FAC, or off-FAC, is perhaps a question for @FAC coordinators: . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I also note that what was considered a source review in the Ealdgyth days was more than "all sources are high quality and reliable", and went into examining which sources might have been left out, which is my concern here. What used to be considered a source review (comprehensive survey of the literature) is no longer evaluated at FAC. With so much written on this topic, why are some sources unused or underused? Why was Dick's word considered authoritative on "Eisenhower was wrong"? (In fact, I'm curious to know what exactly did Dick say about "Eisenhower being wrong", leading to that statement being included, albeit without attribution?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the red link issue can be put to one side as a minor issue. (Although, obviously, it needs to be resolved with the nominator at some stage.) Looking at sourcing at all at ACR is relatively new, and regardless of what the criteria contain is normally limited to a check as to whether the sources used are RS. So I would not expect a normal ACR to pick up non-trivial sourcing issues and do not consider it a failure of the procedure that it has not. (Whether the normal procedure should be changed is a different issue.) I agree that a discussion on the extent to which source spot checks are carried out for established nominators at FAC - I am under the impression that that is one of your main points above - may be worthwhile. An examination of the breadth of sources used is yet another issue which could, perhaps, be usefully discussed. But not on this FAC talk page, where we have probably already side-tracked enough. I shall let you get back to reviewing this article, and open a discussion on my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Then I think we have a perception problem that affects reviews. I have always (perhaps incorrectly ?) assumed that passing MILHIST A-class meant that I, as a layreviewer, did not have to concern myself with the accuracy of the military content. (Similar to deferring to medical reviewers on the medical accuracy of those articles.) In both cases I mention, there were limited passages that sent up red flags, causing me to dig deeper. I agree this is going off-topic for this FAC, so will move a lot of this to the talk page of this FAC later (unsure if I should just do it now, considering editors I have pinged to this discussion?) ... Do you think I should move to talk from your 12:14 post or my 14:48 post? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly don't think that a FAC nom should be "sent back to ACR" because one reviewer is leaning oppose, with the deepest respect to you and your experience, SG. Neither FAC not ACR work like that. I haven't looked at the specific issue of Eisenhower as yet, and I didn't detect any pro-British bias when I reviewed the article. I actually thought one of the clear criticisms of Eisenhower's staff (and the Truman Committee) was probably underplayed, that of the decision to not authorise the necessary number of truck companies (and the truck production in the US), which had far-reaching implications for US logistics during the campaign. I agree with Gog that the relatively new Milhist ACR source review process can be cursory (targeting the reliability of the sources rather than source-text checks), and that there are rarely in-depth checks conducted for regular nominators with dozens of FAs under their belt unless it is done by one of the "specialist" source reviewers like Buidhe who regularly participate. IMHO, the appropriate course of action here is for Hawkeye7 to have an opportunity to address the specific issue during the FAC, and if he doesn't do so to SGs satisfaction, SG opposes. We will then see if there is consensus for promotion, which the coords will determine. If there isn't, it won't get promoted. It will then be a question of whether anyone nominates it for Milhist ACR re-assessment on the basis of the perceived weaknesses identified by SG. If that occurs, the ACR process will determine if it is still considered to meet the Milhist A-Class criteria. I will look at the specific issue of Eisenhower and anything else that has been raised under SGs oppose once I've finished a curly GAN I'm currently doing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have just caught up with this. What Peacemaker67 said. PM, I am proposing that we have a relook at just how we handle source reviews for ACR at the MH coordinators page. I get the impression that the current procedure was introduced rather rapidly in response to a particular situation; it may benefit from a review - looking at how well it is serving us and whether any tweaks are appropriate? Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I certainly don't think that a FAC nom should be "sent back to ACR" because one reviewer is leaning oppose, with the deepest respect to you and your experience, SG. Neither FAC not ACR work like that. I haven't looked at the specific issue of Eisenhower as yet, and I didn't detect any pro-British bias when I reviewed the article. I actually thought one of the clear criticisms of Eisenhower's staff (and the Truman Committee) was probably underplayed, that of the decision to not authorise the necessary number of truck companies (and the truck production in the US), which had far-reaching implications for US logistics during the campaign. I agree with Gog that the relatively new Milhist ACR source review process can be cursory (targeting the reliability of the sources rather than source-text checks), and that there are rarely in-depth checks conducted for regular nominators with dozens of FAs under their belt unless it is done by one of the "specialist" source reviewers like Buidhe who regularly participate. IMHO, the appropriate course of action here is for Hawkeye7 to have an opportunity to address the specific issue during the FAC, and if he doesn't do so to SGs satisfaction, SG opposes. We will then see if there is consensus for promotion, which the coords will determine. If there isn't, it won't get promoted. It will then be a question of whether anyone nominates it for Milhist ACR re-assessment on the basis of the perceived weaknesses identified by SG. If that occurs, the ACR process will determine if it is still considered to meet the Milhist A-Class criteria. I will look at the specific issue of Eisenhower and anything else that has been raised under SGs oppose once I've finished a curly GAN I'm currently doing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
American logistics in the Northern France campaign played a key role after the Allied breakout from the Normandy lodgment began on 25 July 1944. The subsequent advance was much faster than expected and the logistical plan lacked the flexibility to cope with the rapidly changing operational situation. At critical junctures in the campaign, senior American commanders subordinated logistical imperatives to operational opportunities. The decision to abandon plans to develop the ports of Brittany left only the Normandy beaches and the port of Cherbourg. The subsequent decision to pursue the defeated Germans beyond the Seine led to a multitude of logistical problems as increased German resistance stalled the American advance. Motor transport was used as a stopgap; the Red Ball Express was organized to deliver supplies from the Normandy area. However, there was a shortage of suitable vehicles, approval for additional drivers was slow, and racial segregation complicated personnel assignment. (Full article...)
1,016 characters, including spaces
Hi Hawkeye7 and congratulations. A draft blurb for this article is above. Thoughts, comments and edits from you or from anyone else interested are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's my version:
American logistics in the Northern France campaign played a key role in the Allied breakout from the lodgment in Normandy that began on 25 July 1944 and the subsequent pursuit of the defeated German forces. The advance was much faster than expected the rapid increase in the length of the line of communications threw up unanticipated logistical challenges. The logistical plan lacked flexibility, the rehabilitation of railways and construction of pipelines could not keep up with the pace of the advance, and resupply by air had limited capacity. Critical shortages developed, particularly of petrol, oil and lubricants (POL). Motor transport was used as a stopgap, with the Red Ball Express (pictured) organized to deliver supplies from Normandy, but there was a shortage of suitable vehicles and trained drivers, and racial segregation complicated personnel assignment. Logistical problems and increased German resistance eventually stalled the American advance. (Full article...)
984 characters
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, that works fine for me. If you are happy with it, strike the draft above to avoid confusion. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)