Talk:Battle of Saint-Malo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• No DABs and external links OK
• Images appropriately licensed
• fortification at the edge "on" the edge?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• and was rebuilt suggest "had to be rebuilt"
  • It didn't 'have to be' rebuilt - as the last section notes, serious consideration was given to leaving the town in ruins as a memorial. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• 1000 tons of cargo spell out thousands
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Tell the reader that Anne of Brittany was Duchess of Brittany
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Fort de la Cite d'Aleth Should there be an accent in Cite?
  • Yep, added. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• "artillery guns" reads oddly to me
  • Seems OK to me? Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Provide a conversion for 194mm
  • Added Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• military honor the Knight's Cross comma after honor
  • Added Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• hyphen for ad hoc, well defended
  • Hyphenated Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Link brigade, regiment, company, all military ranks, VIII Corps
  • Linked StuG Brigade 341 (my understanding is that these 'brigades' weren't much more than battalions) and the units. Linking the ranks looks like over-linking? - my understanding is that we link ranks in bio articles, but not battle articles. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The StuG brigades were indeed small, but I was asking for brigade itself, rather than the unit. I treat links for ranks in all articles just like everything else. On first use only since I don't think that many readers understand the difference
      • As the only time 'brigade' is used is when two notable and hence red linked units are named, I think it would be confusing to link 'brigade' and this would break the red links. Our coverage of German and US WW2-era brigades isn't great, possibly as they were fairly rare types of formations for both armies. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Good point. There are a couple of books on the StuG brigades and it would be easy enough to build stubs on them. Maybe a project for a rainy day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Due to the scale of the German forces would defenses work better than forces
  • Defenses is used in the previous sentence. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • OK
• Patton overruled this, however, in the belief suggest something like "Patton overruled him, believing..."
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• resume its mission of securing the railway bridges had no idea that that was its mission
  • It's in the second sentence of the 'Task Force A' section :) Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure enough. I'd searched specifically for railroad brigdes :-(
• village of Pleurtuit comma after the name
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• with the defenses including 18 or 20 machine guns and a small number of mortars, but the weapons were skillfully emplaced. suggest rewording along the lines of "with only 18 or 20 skillfully emplaced machine guns and a small number of mortars"
  • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• existent as at 2018 as "of"
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Fix the formatting of Note A so that the cite appears with all the other ones.
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Add the edition to Rohwer
  • Third - added. I recently bought a second hand copy online when my local library threatened to dispose of its copy, and it ended up being from the New Hampshire Technological Institute's library which had obviously done the same! It's a very handy book. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • It's a great book, and I've used mine so much that I've had to repair its binding with packing tape. Don't get me started on library de-accessioning policies! We'd be here awhile...
• Lots of little nits, but a well-written article regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Your changes look fine, only the links to the ranks remaining.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Ranks linked, and I've made some other minor tweaks. Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)