Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Villers-Bocage/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 4 May 2010 [1].

Battle of Villers-Bocage edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third times a charm eh?

Ok during the final attempt to get the article passed we hit a few hiccups, which have now been surpassed. We also gained access to basically the only book missing to throw in further POV, and additional information. I believe the article now covers every possible angle, sufficiently covers the controversy in detail, and ticks off everything in the FAC list.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I got rid of the one dab link. There are no dead external links. Ucucha 11:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
propably Support good coverage of a relative "little" but controversial battle. Very detailed. Very good maps. Germans point of view is present. Some "negative" comments: Schneiders anti SS-tanker opinion too long, overweight? Value of Strengthsection in the box is a bit suspect. The excessive analysis tries do focus on german tactical failures ( wittmann ) and on british command failures. I see no proper coverage of the british infantry "fleeing" and "hiding" instead of attacking a single tank without infantry support. If the articles goes into such detail that he pick the descisions of a first Lieutenant to pieces than include british infantry too. But its very good article even with some shortcommings. Blablaaa (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to get into this argument yet again Blablaa; Schiender is a GERMAN TANKER, SOLDIER, and HISTORIAN; he decided to rip apart Wittmann's actions because they deserve to be after the hyberold that has been described and equally attacked. If you want further detail you need to bring sources to the table; considering i have now exhausted every source i have or know of on the subject and none of them detail anything in support of your opinion - drop it unless you can support. Am extremely disappointed that you have used this to carry on your attacks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm i guess u misunderstand my intention, i gave u a "support". i also questioned the room for schneiders comments. i not questioned that u mentioned him i said that in my opinions hes maybe a bit overweight. I simply give my comments to the FAC. Blablaaa (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I not even expressed my opinion about anything..... Only about the FAC... Schneider is the historian with the most words! far more than any other. His analysis of german side has the most space in your article. Thats all what i said. Relax... Blablaaa (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took my comment back Blablaaa (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. EnigmaMcmcx, I am very disappointed in what I see as a personal attack against another editor. Focus on content and not on other editors. Blablaaa gave you good feedback in regards to undue weight issues concerning Schieder. He focused on this FAC while you focused on him. Please strike your personal attack. Thanks. Caden ^cool 10:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: It has been a four-five month long argument, am fed up of it. If there was a violation of the WP:Undue weight policy myself or one of the other editors who have been involved in this article would have acted accordingly as we have done in the past (in fact my fellow editors have already acted, months ago, adding added further detail of the praise various sources have gave Wittmann). Considering the role Wittmann plays in the literature surrounding the battle that explains the reason for the detail in the article; the first section soley on Wittmann is split 50-50 on positive and negative aspects while the tactical section devotes just over 50% to the Germans and Wittmann. Granted the latter section comes from mostly one source - an expert opinion - it rounds off the section with positive comentry from his Corps commander.

The article and tactical section also weigh in on the errors the British made but as, in various "debates" with Blablaaa we cannot go further if there is no source. I would rather get back on reviewing the article than carry on a tried, overdone slinging match that is going no where to be honest.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects balance on Wittmann's actions - there is praise, there are those

Support—My concerns have been addressed. I think this is an excellent article that satisfies the FA criteria and deserves to be promoted.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—It looks good and I am close to support. But first I have a few issues:
- ~~The image caption in the infobox should explain the relevance of the picture to the subject. Captain Paddy is not mentioned in the article, so his mention here is obscure.~~
  The Cromwell OP tank mentioned in the article; i have redid the caption.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some minor inconsistency in the placement of the periods at the end of a quote. Some sentences end with [".], others with [."]. This may be switching between British and American practices; it would be good to be consistent.
- 5th Royal Horse Artillery was mentioned as being in the battle, but their role is somewhat unclear. For example, was their fire part of the called-in British artillery fire in the "Afternoon battle"? Do we know where they were positioned?
  Seems we forgot to add in the abbrevation on first mention - i have added in 5RHA after the first mention in the text. I will look into changing the sentance that deals with the allied fire and smoke screen as 5RHA did this.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) We have made a little rewording to clarify their role in the latter part of the battle and i will reconsult the sources to see if i can nail down where abouts they were positioned and then clairfy in the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Position established and mentioned in the planning section.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~It would be nice to have a tactical map of the battle in Villers-Bocage, but I understand if none is available.~~
  As far as i am aware there isnt really one showing the deployment of forces in the town during the fightin, i will double check however.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I cant currently find any free images of a tactical overlay of the afternoon battle (since the morning is already covered) we may be able to produce one although that will take some time and organisation.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments RJ!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thank you. There's just the one issue left with the inconsistent double quoting punctuation. Examples:~~
~~...to Wittmann's "courage, ... his Panzer crew."~~

~~...followed as "remarkable but massively over-written".~~

~~...the moment that "marked, ... since D-Day."~~

~~...a scene of "burning tanks ... and dead Tommies".~~

I have checked the article that deals qith quoation marls, it states that it is common practice in most of the western world to place the period inside the quotation marks so i have done so.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No probs dude, thanks for the comments and review :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not seeing this and responding sooner. See WP:LQ; the punctuation should be inside the quotes if part of the quote, and outside if not. The above were all consistent with this; they should really be changed back. Sorry... :) EyeSerene^talk 07:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should i, or one of us, then revert the edit?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They should really be double-checked against the sources. Sentence fragments (their reverse speed was "painfully slow.", "remarkable but massively over-written".) should normally place the punctuation outside the quote; the others will depend on whether it's a complete sentence or a significant part of one being quoted and where that quote uses punctuation. It's really pretty trivial though, so I don't think it's too urgent :) EyeSerene^talk 07:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice article! The spacing of the first two pictures in the "Aftermath" section leave some white spots on my browser. Can this be fixed? Maybe move on to the left MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comemnts and support MisterBee; i have had a quick play around and other than the removal of the images it doesnt look like we can much am afraid.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ only joking! Big Support, but better include a disclaimer. I supported this article in its last FAC, and have made some minor edits to it during copyediting in the wake of that. I don't consider myself to be a major contributor to the article though (if that makes any difference to my support). Ranger Steve (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very impressive piece of work, congratulations to the authors involved.

Source POV issues handled skillfully: personally, I don't see any undue weight problems.
One comment: I trust there were reasons for doing so, but consider being less coy about the name of the British commander(s) in the lead.
Excellent use of images.
Prose is engaging, quotes and details keep the action (and reader interest) alive.
If there is a 'next level' of FAC criteria, I believe this article meets them. Doug (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your flattering review :) I've added a mention of Hinde to the lead. EyeSerene^talk 20:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with two caveats:

Please review the image captions for proper punctuation: only full sentences should end with a full stop.
I saw so many full stops inside ending quote marks (in all but two cases, one of which originated with me) that I suspect that logical quotation hasn't been employed here. Reading this FAC page, I see that this was raised above. EyeSerene is giving it to you right.

Otherwise, looking great. Nice work! Maralia (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maralia. I've been through the article and addressed your points - hopefully I caught all of them! EyeSerene^talk 10:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.