Talk:Dunkirk evacuation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 06:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

G'day, Diannaa, thanks for your work on this article. It looks great. I have a few comments/suggestions for taking this article further (admittedly probably beyond GA): AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• this seems inconsistent: in the lead "between 27 May and 4 June 1940" but in the infobox "3 June 1940"Y
• in the lead, "three French armies" --> perhaps add a wikilink to Field army here to aid reader understanding?Y
• in the lead, "From 28–31 May 1940, in the Siege of Lille, the remaining 40,000 men of the once-formidable French First Army fought in a..." --> Between 28 and 31 May 1940, in the Siege of Lille, the remaining 40,000 men of the once-formidable French First Army fought a..."? Y
• the duplicate link checker tool reveals the following terms as possibly overlinled: John Vereker; OKH; Royal Air Force; Y Gort is still linked 3 times (infobox, lede, body); hope that's okay.
• " Generaloberst Gerd von Rundstedt" --> is it possible to add a translation of the rank here and in other places where the German is presented? Y
• please wikilink "division", "corps" and "battalion" etc. on first mention where appropriate to help readers understand the size of these formations; Y
• in the Background, "On 19 May, commander of the BEF General John Vereker, 6th Viscount Gort met" --> "On 19 May, Gort met..."? (as his full name and role has already been introduced);Y
• the Background, "Billotte revealed that the French had no troops between the Germans and the sea..." The section doesn't seem to make it clear that British forces were engaged in combat (its been awhile since I read into the campaign, but from memory, they had started in the north around the Dyle then fallen back towards the Escaut etc...) It probably wouldn't need more than a couple of sentences to make this clearer...Y added a bit
• "Just before 7 PM" --> "Just before 7:00 pm" (per MOS:TIME);Y
• "Guderian's engineers" --> Guderian doesn't appear to have been introduced yet, so perhaps use his full name and explain his role/position?Y
• "Runstedt and OKH (German High Command)" --> the explanation of OKH here probably should be moved to the first mention and the link removed;Y
• "Guderian considered the failure of the OKW" (who or what OKW is doesn't appear to have been defined yet);Y omitted; it works okay without this mention
• "surrender; they had run out of food and ammunition" --> "surrender having run out of food and ammunition"?Y
• "canals about seven miles" --> should a convert template be added?Y
• "called East and West Mole" --> "the East and West Moles"?Y
• "embarked on ships from East Mole" --> "embarked on ships from the East Mole"?Y
• "Lord Gort and 68,014 men evacuated on 31 May" --> "Lord Gort and 68,014 men were evacuated on 31 May"?Y
• "he route was safest from surface attacks, but the nearby minefields and sand banks meant it could only be used at night" --> I'm strictly a landlubber myself, so maybe I've misunderstood, but why would the presence of minefields mean it could only be used at night? This seems a little counter-intuitive. I know that it is sometimes easier/safer to clear minefields on land by night, but I'm not sure if this would apply to a ship traversing a minefield at sea...? Y Actually this was a typo; the mined, sandy areas were pretty impossible to use at night.
• "Admiralty withdrew their eight best destroyers from the operation so as to ensure" --> "Admiralty withdrew their eight best destroyers from the operation to ensure" Y
• "The BEF lost 68,000 soldiers (dead, wounded, missing, or captured)" --> I think this figure applies to the entire campaign (fighting after the 10 May invasion), perhaps it would make sense to clarify this here, as the reader might think it just related to actions around Dunkirk?Y you are correct; it's for the whole campaign. Clarified.
• "Almost all of the 445 British tanks were abandoned" --> "Almost all of the 445 British tanks that had been sent to France with the BEF were abandoned"?Y
• "The army lost so many rifles that an American journalist saw battalions marching through London with only a half dozen rifles each" --> I believe that the situation was so bad that losses had to be made up by scouring the Dominions for replacement rifles. Not sure if you think it necessary, but this article in the Canberra Times might prove useful if you want to add something on that: [1] N not done - probably too much detail for this article.

• No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "at least 42 were Spitfires" --> link for Spitfire?Y
• "Another major complaint was that German guards kicked over buckets of water that had been left at the roadside by French civilians" --> "Another major complaint was that German guards kicked over buckets of water that had been left at the roadside by French civilians for the marching prisoners to drink"?Y
• "The majority (those below the rank of corporal) then worked in German industry and agriculture for the remainder of the war" --> can anything be said of those above the rank of corporal?
  • I don't have access to Longden, the source for this paragraph, so I can't say for sure what the fate of the officers was. I would have to assume they were held in officer POW camps but it's best not to add that without any sources.
    • No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• the majority of the citations use the "sfn" template, except two – "War Diary of Army Group A, 24.v.40" and "OKW Jodl Diary, 25.v.40" – is it possible to format these using "sfn" for consistency?Y
• seems inconsistent: "pp. 117 ff" v. "p. 736 (footnote)" Y I assume you mean the brackets? If not, please let me know.
  • G'day, I probably didn't explain it very well. I've tweaked it to what I think is necessary. Please feel free to revert if you disagree. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, if one exists, could an oclc number or ISBN be added for this work: "Mordal, Jacques (1968). Dunkerque (in French)"?Y
• the Further reading section seems to use a different format to the Bibliography. Could this please be made consistent?Y
• "File:DUNKIRK1940.jpg": currently licenced as fair use, but surely it would actually be PD? For instance {{PD-BritishGov}} seems appropriate. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The Imperial War Museum shows a non-commercial license - works are available for non-commercial purposes only, which I don't think is free enough for Wikipedia purposes.
    • I'll leave it up to you, but I actually think the IWM might have provided the incorrect licence as per the FOI email attached to {{PD-BritishGov}}: [2] But its not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, and thanks for taking on this review. I have addressed all the listed points and await your feedback. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Dianna, your changes look great. I've added a couple of responses above; I'm happy to pass the article for GA. Thanks for your hard work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)