# Talk:Battle of Mont Sorrel

I think we've got the dates wrong.  the 12 days listed don't match the dates that I actually found on the memorial itself when I was there in July (I have the pictures to prove it, although I haven't uploaded them to my gallery).  I'll double-check this, but I'm pretty sure that the battle ended August 2nd.
--Cam (complain and discuss here) 06:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and this article will be undergoing a serious revamp over the next little while.
The monument intends to commemorate not only St. Eloi and Mount Sorrel but it’s entire period in the Salient during the spring and summer on 1916. All of the sources I have read, including battalion diaries, indicate the battle starting with the German attack on June 2 and ending either the June 13 or 14. Labattblueboy (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently completed a re-write and full citation of the article. I am looking for a couple set of eyes to look over the work and offer constructive criticism before moving it on to GAN.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Mont Sorrel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended other comments which, whilst not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


### Issues preventing promotion
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
"Mercer was wounded three time" - "times".  Done
"At 1:00pm, German pioneers detonated a series of four mines near the Canadian forward trenches before the Germans attacked with six battalions. Five more battalions were in support and an additional six in reserve. When the German forces attacked," Insert the words in italics. Done
"Owing to the . . . 3rd Canadian Division temporarily." - sentance uses "temporarily" twice. Done
"However, some rockets misfired and did not burst resulting in an uneven assault whereby each unit moved from their starting lines at different times.[7] The four attacking battalions suffered heavy losses as they advanced at different times over open ground in broad daylight" - no need to say "different times" twice. Done
"positions it had retreaterd to after" - spelling Done
"British reinforcements & second German attack" - Do not use ampersands in headings. Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I don't feel that the Background section adequately covers the situation in June 1916. It does not mention the impending Battle of the Somme (which had a direct effect on this battle) and does not give a casual reader any impression of the situation on the Western Front at this time. A brief summary of developments in the region during the first half of 1916 is important to set the scene.  Done
Added context as it relates to the Battle of the Somme and Battle of Verdun.
In a second but closely related point, the Background section leaps straight from Byng's planned attack to a German plan of attack without differentiating them in the text.  Done
I have moved the Byng plan into the German Offensive section. I have cleared things up with some paragraph transitions between para 1&2 and 3&4 of the German Offensive section.
The "German offensive" section needs an introductory sentance explaining that the Germans were also planning an assault  Done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
The modern image of Sanctuary Wood should be on the right because as it is, it disrupts the text and second level heading below it.  Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing it is OK, although if it does become possible to reinsert it at some stage that would be nice.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I fully intend to reinsert the image after I have increased the amount of text in the aftermath section. Possibly after I identify which German cemeteries contain battle combatants. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 


### Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

I'm not a fan of placing images on the right directly under third level headings as I feel it makes the article harder to read. However this is permitted in the MOS and I am certainly not insisting on the movement of all such images.
Moved 1st image down as there was space in the section to do so. Modern image of Sanctuary Woods was removed until it can be more properly fit in. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a campaign box into which this article might be inserted to give it slightly better context?
As it is a local conflict I do not know one. One could supposedly be created for Canadian Corps battle honours but nothing exists to denote it as an example of German attempts to tie down Allied resources prior to the Somme offensive. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"Finally, on the morning of 2 June" - no need for "finally", start the paragraph with "On".  Done
"taken prisoner, becoming the most senior" - no need for "becoming".  Done

On a more personal note, I was the editor who took Malcolm Mercer and Edwin Alderson to GA (a good 18 months ago now), and was disappointed then to see how poor this article was at that time. I am thus extremely impressed with the improvements made and am pleased to have to opportunity to review this piece. I don't believe the changes needed are too drastic and I look forward to passing this in the near future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I spotted one additional issue:
"The peeks were the only portion" - Do you mean peaks?  Done
Otherwise I am happy to pass this article as a very nice presentation of a very little known battle. I enjoyed reading it and learnt quite a bit that I had not known before. Thankyou and well done--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a casualties section using data from the OH which gives a different figure for German losses to Godefroy, not sure why. Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Altered dates according to James A Record... 1924 [1990] but happy to defer to the COH if it's different. Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicholson (p. 147) has the dates as 2-13, that's fine. As to my preferred version of the text, Nicholson (p. 148) also has "At the least such an advance might, as the Germans themselves stated, "fetter as strong a force as possible to the Ypres Salient", and thus reduce the number available for a British offensive elsewhere." As such, my reasons aren't OR :). Going from "trying to reduce the number available for a British offensive" to "an effort to pull British resources from the observed build-up on the Somme" wouldn't be OR either, more of a paraphrase to avoid copying the source. Also, "pull" has a more forceful tone than simply "divert", which makes the former more stylistically pleasing and which better conveys the violence of the whole thing (this is modern war, after all). In the end, it's just a matter of style but I prefer what was already in the article. Also, there is no criteria anywhere for being "concise" - I think the furthest WP policy goes is to say that we should avoid being verbose, which wasn't the case so both versions are fine. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Sophistry.Keith-264 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Why? Paraphrasing the source is ok and even required - nothing fallacious there. Neither of the versions is verbose, so that's fine as well. As to "pull" being more violent than "divert", as I said, that is merely a stylistic change and if you disagree with my reasons (and whatever were the reasons of the one who wrote the disputed text fragment in the first place), you can state why and not just discard it with a one-liner. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Come off it, you're splitting hairs about meaning; do you have a source, preferably German that describes the purpose of the German attack? The orders of the XIII Corps commander Fr Oskar von Watter were "to wrest from the enemy his last dominating observation posts over considerable areas immediately behind the chief fighting ground". OH 1916 I, p. 243 (1932 [1993]). I had a look through Foley, R. T. (2007) [2005]. German Strategy and the Path to Verdun: Erich von Falkenhayn and the Development of Attrition, 1870–1916 but found nothing about the attack. Sheldon 2017 devotes considerable space to Falkenhayn's "complacency" about the 2nd Army on the Somme and his interest in maintaining the strength of the 6th Army. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems quite pedantic to debate "pull" vs. "divert" but I have to agree with Keith-264. I've seen no quality indication of their being any belief the battle would pull resources from the Somme build-up. 198.84.253.202 if you'd like to research this further, I don't remember Sheldon making any mention in German Army on the Somme, 1914-1916 but I could be mistaken. Likewise, Nicholson is citing Die 27. Infanterie-Division im Weltkrieg 1914-18 (The 27th Infantry Division in the World War 1914-18)[1925], page 39 and maybe you'd find something further there. Without however additional sourcing I believe divert is perfectly fine.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I've had a look at my sources and the German minor operations at the start of the year are ascribed to the offensive at Verdun as a means to camouflage the site of the main offensive. OH 1916 I has quite a section on Mont Sorrel but restricts itself to local reasons for attacking and the dispute between the corps commander the divisional commander over whether the captured ground would be tenable, a question that the Canadians solved for them. Foley refers to the local efforts up to the beginning of the Verdun offensive but is silent thereafter. Keith-264 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Added a prelude with the German preparations and moved the Canadian preparations into it. The commemoration section has only one cite though. Keith-264 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Tinkered with headers, not really sure though. Keith-264 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)