Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Varsity

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Varsity[edit]

This article was the first that I participated in, and recently passed a GA review. I am now hoping to have it pass the A-Class review process, primarily to help improve the article. Skinny87 (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent article. Just a few minor things: Support
- ~~Would it be possible to find a non-captured statistic for German casualties?~~

Asked the editor who cited the captured German forces to see if the source cites casualties, as I've never been able to find one.

- "where it was engaged by heavy small-arms and 20mm anti-aircraft fire" — "heavy small arms fire" sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps you should change it to "significant amounts of small-arms fire & 20mm anti-aircraft fire", so as to make it flow slightly better.

Done!

- ~~"Perhaps the main flaw that can be seen in the operation is that, in many ways, it was unnecessary" should probably have a citation.~~

Also done! Skinny87 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't been happy with that section for a while, and I've realized that some of it can't be supported, so I've deleted the OR section, although I hadn't realized it actually was OR until now. Skinny87 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, looks good. Fix those few minor things, and you should be good. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Noticed that you'd fixed most of the stuff. The lack of casualty-statistic for German forces is a minor issue, and I'm able to take this stuff in stride. You have my vote. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've loked through my books, and even Peter Harclerode, who goes into excessive and often anal detail, doesn't list any casualties for the Germans. I'm wondering if the Allies simply didn't know. When I looked through the Parachute Regiments archives on Varsity a year back, I don't remember any Axis casuaty reports. Skinny87 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the editor who inputted the figures double-checked, and there are no killed/wounded/missing figures. Skinny87 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There appears to be a sentence fragment in the first paragraph of the "6th Airborn Division" section, "significant amounts of small-arms fire & 20mm anti-aircraft fire". I'm sure that can be fixed quickly. Nice article. Cla68 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my bad. I was the one who suggested that it change to that, rather than "heavy small arms fire". Thanks for catching that. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now, thanks for catching that. Skinny87 (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A wonderful article, well written and well referenced. Some admittedly minor suggestions -

The two airborne divisions would be dropped behind German lines, with their objective to land around Wesel and disrupt enemy defences in order to aid the advance of the British Second Army towards Wesel. - Reference #11 should perhaps be also added after this sentence. In any case, good job! JonCatalan (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done!Skinny87 (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As JonCatalan states, this is a well written article, and you've added even more references since I merged the rest the other day with the "ref name" tag, which prompted me to merge the new ones too. You've also mananged to track down some good photographs from during the operation, which greatly improves the quality of the article. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Parsec, although 'm afraid doing Jon's request created another one for you to merge f you wouldn't mind! Skinny87 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, got'r did :) Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.