Talk:Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 20:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That was quick. I only nominated it a short time ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I check the warfare list at WP:GAN a couple times a week, thought this one looks interesting, and decided to take the review. Hog Farm _Talk 00:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "knowledge that a second army group was operation in France" - Something's a little off in the phrasing

  Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "SHAEF advanced at Jullouville was ill-suited to the conduct of a fast-moving land battle" - Something is also off a little there

  What's off is that the H in SHAEF already stands for "headquarters" so "advanced SHAEF headquarters" is a tautology. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Link Metz.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Brooke and Churchill, were visiting the Italian front at the time." - Is that comma truly necessary?

  It is not. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "This is no reason to doubt his assessment." - It's unclear to me what "this" is referring to

  Deleted sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Pogue felt that the description of "pencil-like" was more applicable to Patton's proposal, which called for just two corps, and which Eisenhower likewise rejected" - Was Patton's proposal the "whereby the main effort of the 12th Army Group would be south of the Ardennes, towards Metz and the Saar" mentioned above?

  Yes. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Somehow, the Taylor and Van Creveld refs seem to have been jammed together

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Error of some sort in Weigley, looks like a typo of / instead of |

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Refs all look reliable
• Images all appear to be appropriately licensed

That's it from me, putting on hold. Hog Farm _Talk 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you find the article interesting? Does it make sense to you? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I did find it interesting. It made sense to me, although I do have some familiarity with this general topic from reviewing the logistics in the northern France campaign article. Hog Farm _Talk 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)