Talk:Battle of La Haye-du-Puits

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

My method of working

I don't work very fast. My method of working is to add a paragraph each day. The article will take shape slowly. Unfortunately, I do not have the same references as you on hand, but am making a start with the ones I do have. We can work around each other. I'm a little unsure about the American strategy: was it to create a breakthrough, or an advance to secure a start line for one? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very much the latter. Ideally they wanted to jump off from the St-Lo - Coutances road (in their dreams) and this battle was a step towards that and to giving their lodgement depth - for security and to allow room for airfields and for reinforcement and logistics build up.
"Scheduled for 1 July, the attack was designed to push the Germans out of Normandy and to open the way for American operations into Brittany." (Doubler, p. 19) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I have plenty on my self. I tend to work in spasms. Sources - as you say, hopefully we can provide each others missing links. I will be off line from Sunday evening UTC until probably Friday. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my books are about the British Second Army in Normandy. I just completed work on British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign. British commanders tended to set grandiose objectives and then argue afterwards that the whole operation went according to plan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm starting to make progress on this. What made you want to write about this? The Americans don't seem very interested in it at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's it from me. All yours now. A good start would be to write a lead. I'm terrible at those. This is the first muddy boots article I've worked on since Landing on Long Island. For a while I used to work with Rupert, who wrote the tactical part of the article while I handled the strategy and logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, goodness, you seem to have done a bit more than the suggested paragraph a day. And apologies for suggesting a collaboration and then going AWOL for a week. I shall pitch in now and exhaust my sources, and then we can see where we are. Many thanks for the vast amount of information already added. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Monday was a public holiday here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Cherbourg fell on 27 June, as my 1999 Hastings states on p. 195. Cap de la Hague fell on 1 July. Could you check that Hastings 2006 p. 165 cite? I have made a few other tweaks for flow and will probably make more. Obviously shout about anything you are unhappy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Hastings, so I substituted Harrison, who says Cherbourg surrendered on 26 June. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct in that the Cherbourg commander (Schlieben) surrendered on 26 July. Cherbourg possibly "fell" on the 27th after several isolated garrisons surrendered. Although heavy fighting, including naval support, continued against diehards in the harbour forts until 19:00 on the 28th. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"With the surrender of General Schlieben on 26 June and of his deputy, General Sattler, the following day, all organized resistance in Cherbourg ceased. The primary objective of First Army in the assault phase of OVERLORD had been achieved. But this was not the end. Cherbourg had fallen, but some fighting continued. General Schlieben had surrendered, but some 6,000 of his men remained to fight on in the Cap de la Hague." Go with 27 June? You already mention the Cap de la Hague. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We may be getting a little over detailed here. How about:
Cherbourg fell on 27 June, after the surrender of General Schlieben on 26 June and of his deputy, General Sattler, the following day. The primary objective of First Army in the assault phase of OVERLORD had been achieved. Organized German resistance in the northern Cotentin Peninsula ended on 1 July, when the 9th Infantry Division managed to reduce the defenses of Cap de la Hague, north-west of the port.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a little repetitive. I suggest the following:

Following the successful Allied invasion of Normandy on D-Day, 6 June 1944, progress inland was slow.[1] The original plan for the campaign envisioned that the British Second Army (Lieutenant-General Miles Dempsey) in the east would secure Caen and the area south of it to acquire airfields and protect the left flank,[2] while the First US Army (Lieutenant General Omar Bradley) in the west captured the deep water port of Cherbourg, and would then "wheel round" to the Loire valley.[3][4]

Successive Anglo-Canadian offensives failed to take Caen, but they kept the best of the German forces in Normandy, including most of the armor, in this area.[5] With no ports in Allied hands, all reinforcements and supplies came over the beaches or via two artificial harbors.[6] On 19 June, a strong storm descended on the English Channel that lasted for three days and caused significant delays to the Allied build-up.[7] In the west, attacks to the south were halted by Bradley before the town of Saint-Lô in order to concentrate on the seizure of Cherbourg.[8][9] Cherbourg fell on 27 June,[10] and organized German resistance in the northern Cotentin Peninsula ended on 1 July.[11]

I like it. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Van der Vat 2003, p. 110.
  2. ^ Ellis 2004, p. 78.
  3. ^ Bradley 1983, p. 261.
  4. ^ Williams 2004, p. 24.
  5. ^ Keegan 2006, p. 135.
  6. ^ Griess 2002, pp. 308–310.
  7. ^ Williams 2004, p. 114.
  8. ^ Williams 2004, p. 163.
  9. ^ Griess 2002, p. 312.
  10. ^ Harrison 1951, p. 458.
  11. ^ Zaloga 2015, p. 86.

Clarity

"The main body of the 505th Parachute Infantry reached the northern and eastern slopes of Hill 131 by mid-morning, and they were captured for the loss of 4 paratroopers dead, 25 wounded and 5 missing; 146 prisoners were taken."

This sentence reads as if the 505th have been captured, which doesn't fit the context of the rest of the section. Do we need to clarify who "they" is referring to here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Battle of La Haye-du-Puits; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Hawkeye7, as the emergency backlog mode is active and you have nominated more than 20 articles, you will need to provide a second QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of it, and the software did not mention it. I have added a second review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not WP:DYKNEW enough. I see that it is currently nominated for GAN, so if that nomination is successful, then this article will be eligible for DYK for 7 days after that nomination is successfully concluded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? The article was moved to the mainspace on 10 March, the day before it was nominated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article's edit history, it was created in June of 2021. What am I missing? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That it was created in the userspace and moved to the mainspace on 10 March 2024. [2] WP:DYKNEW: For DYK purposes, an article is considered new if, within the last seven days, the article has been created in mainspace from a redlink or redirect; expanded at least fivefold in terms of its prose portion; promoted to good article status; moved from userspace or draftspace into mainspace;
Ah, thank you for making that clear. I didn't realize an article moved from userspace to mainspace would show its userspace edit history. Since it is now clear to me that the article is new enough, I will complete this nomination review shortly. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: This doesn't hold back the nomination, but I couldn't access Ruppenthal 1951 with the link provided in the sources. I recommend you check on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of La Haye-du-Puits/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this, hopefully over the coming weekend. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For an article of almost 7,000 words, the lead could be fleshed out a bit more
    Never much good at leads. Expanded it a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for example, was attached to the 9th, 83rd and 90th Infantry Divisions" - is there a reason why the 9th Division is not linked here?
    checkY Oversight. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the commander of the German 353rd Infantry Division [de]." - I'd drop the interwiki link here; our article actually has more content than the German one
    checkY Done. The article was written before the English version was created. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "even before the artillery had opened fire." - the German or American artillery?
    checkY American. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the envelopment maneuver had failed," - are we sure this is grammatically correct?
  • Is is Le Salons or Le Sablons? Both spellings are used
    checkY Typo. It is Les Sablons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " During the day, the 90th Infantry Division had advanced about 1,200 yards (1,100 m) at a cost of around 600 casualties,[58]" - this ends the paragraph. Is something missing on the end of this, or should the comma be a period?
    checkY Changed comma to full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "First Lieutenant Arch B. Hoge Jr. raised a Confederate flag that his father had carried in World War I and his grandfather had carried in the American Civil War over the town" - source mentions his uncle in WWI, not his father
    checkY Oops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Fales?
    checkY Colonel Clarke K. Fales (1893-1981), commander of the 359th Infantry. Elucidated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the 8-14 July section. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The 8th Infantry Division, despite captured the ridge overlooking the Ay River." (from the lead) - this is a sentence fragment
  • checkY Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and both the company commander and the [75] Company K withdrew under cover of darkness." - I can't tell if this is missing a word or has a bonus "the"

I'll finish up the required spot-checking later today. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On 10 July, the assistant division commander, Brigadier General Nelson M. Walker, was killed while trying to organise an infantry battalion for an attack is very closely paraphrased to the source text of the energetic assistant division commander, Brig. Gen. Nelson M. Walker, was killed as he attempted to organize an infantry battalion for an attack This is okay because the source is PD, but it still isn't great

I spot-checked several other passages and noted no issues. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_La_Haye-du-Puits"