Talk:Battle of Amiens (1918)

message: These sections aren't "bad" as they don't have a negative affect on anything and provide direction to books that provide much more detail than on offer in Wiki articles. Dwp13 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Reading

message: Well written article. It may need some more inline citations though. -- Underneath-it-All 17:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passed GA

message: John Monash was knighted KCB on August 12 and not GCMG. Please refer Monash: The outsider who won the War by Perry 2004. Monash's own diary entry from the day "Am decorated with Star and Order of KCB." King's diary "I gave General Monash & General O'Keeff [sic] the KCB & knighted them." etc. GCMG awarded 1919 honours list in part for Amiens.Roonz123 05:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Monash

message: Why are Australia and Canada listed as separate combatant forces from Britain? They were colonial forces fighting under the Britain, even if it's just referring to Canada, they weren't recognize until AFTER the war.
Sans Nom Reeves 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Entities

message: For all the GA status, this article appears to ignore conventional military chains of command and responsibility. Far too much of the detailed planning is attributed to Marshal Foch, the Allied supreme commander, who had little to do with matters apart from urging everybody to attack. Rawlinson (the British army commander involved) is relegated to the command of a Corps. I'll try and correct this and work in some of the planning which went into the operation. HLGallon 09:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chains of command 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I made several corrections myself throughout the article; remember that inline citations go directly after the punctuation with no space in between. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. As a side note, I'd recommend that more sources be added to further expand the article. The paragraphs that have no sources should have inline citations added as well. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't this originally double figure divisions? As in something like 13 divisions not 3. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 British Divisions?

message: Agree that this is a good article providing a general background on the battle. However, despite the fact that more than 2000 aircraft took part in  operations, there is scarce mention made of the role played by the RAF and French Air Service both in the lead up to, and during the battle. This includes low flying over German lines to mask the noise of assembling armour and attacks on German reinforcements following the initial allied successes.
I believe that the article would benefit from individual sections looking at the role played by armour and aircraft in this battle given the fact that both were relatively new innovations in warfare, and this battle highlights their relatively effective employment.TisoHal (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential expansion to cover different forces in the battle 

message: WW1 articles have been hijacked by a POV. While the significant contribution of the different dominions should be acknowledged seperately, the way belligerents are presented makes Canada, Australia etc, look like independent countries, which is simply not the case. If wikipedia is supposed to be factual, it shouldn't portray them like this Voucherman (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: [] [] Apparently the Canadian Supreme Court held that sovereignty begain in the 1920s.Keith-264 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

text: According to the Infobox, there was no British participation. "British Empire" does not include the UK in normal understanding - Empire forces would be those of the Dominions and Colonies, not British forces. Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The British Empire wasn't a myth 

message: The OoB article isn't clear, so here it goes, the command chain run from Foch>Field armies, Foch>Haig and Petain>Field armies or Foch>Haig>Field armies? The second one is more probable, but who knows. Also, the strength values there and here aren't matching. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied OoB

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Amiens (1918). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223214916/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/greatwar/g3/cs1/background.htm to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/greatwar/g3/cs1/background.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One of the external image links directs to a 404 page.
One of the image descriptions seems to make fun of Will Longstaff's name.
I don't know how to fix/edit the image links and descriptions, so I hope someone else will see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.90.89.28 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, thank you for pointing this out. I believe I have fixed the issue with the caption now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External image link 404; Image description 

message: The article about 11 August states the end of this Battle was on 11 August. However, this article says it was the 12th of August. One statement has to be wrong I think... Encycloon (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end: 11 or 12 August? 

message: This article needs expanding: the background and preliminaries has far more on that than it does on the battle section which is barely half the length. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle section[[User:Eastfarthingan|Eastfarthingan]] ([[User talk:Eastfarthingan|talk]]) 14:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC) 

message: ... awarded the DFC.
consider changing to:
... awarded the DFC.
98.243.51.84 (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day, I have added the link as suggested and expanded the abbreviation as it doesn't seem to have been previously mentioned in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... awarded the DFC 

message: Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in this article, or the linked article listing forces deployed in the battle, to indicate that the USA was involved. If that is the case, the USA shouldn't be among the belligerents listed in the infobox. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I retract this question. There is a reference to the US 33rd Infantry Division participating. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is USA listed as among the belligerents in the infobox?