Talk:Broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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
- "SHAEF advanced at Jullouville was ill-suited to the conduct of a fast-moving land battle" - Something is also off a little there
- Link Metz.
- "Brooke and Churchill, were visiting the Italian front at the time." - Is that comma truly necessary?
- "This is no reason to doubt his assessment." - It's unclear to me what "this" is referring to
- "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?
- Somehow, the Taylor and Van Creveld refs seem to have been jammed together
- Error of some sort in Weigley, looks like a typo of / instead of |
- 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)