Talk:Battle of Verrières Ridge

message: I'm sorry if this page isn't up to snuff.  I'm currently doing major editing on it, and this often requires a lot of time, much of which I don't have at the moment.  Check later that day if it isn't fully edited, I should have managed to correct it by then.
Climie.ca 16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: Needs more citations! :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Climie and all. Carom has moved this to a correctly-spelled page (accent and all!) I have just gone through it and corrected the spelling of "Verrières", and de-capitalised "Ridge", where necessary. Also, I have added "citation needed" tags where I thought appropriate.
Re: the latter, I would caution Cam (and us all) aginst using a CBC/History television source as the main ref. We really risk falling into the (stereo)-typical Canadian flaw of demonising those who should be the biggest heroes (Guy Simmonds springs to mind). Remember always that Arthur Currie, arguably the most effective Allied commander of WW I (along with John Monash), was demonised in Canada in the years following that war. Balance is needed. Why did Simmonds persist? Did he really see the ULTRA messages, or were they just delivered to his HQ? There's lots of this stuff that really needs primary documents to figure out - some of which are available on-line. Was Simmonds really that callous, or was this just one of the unfortunate results of the fog of war? Just my thoughts. Esseh 06:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the advise.  I've begun adding citations.  The biggest problem for me is that I read so much that I often forget where EXACTLY I got the info from.  Tomorrow (after I've slept until noon) I'll reread a bunch of stuff, and then begin adding more citations.Also, a huge reason that the Black Watch was massacred on July 25 was just due to a total and absolute breakdown of any communication (the blackwatch radio was knocked out very VERY early in the battle).  I'll change that quickly (as I mentioned, not right away, since I'm exhausted right now).  Thanks again for the advise.  Oh, and thanks to Carom for changing the link.  I've just seen it spelled both ways before.
Cam 04:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cam, and welcome back. No rush on the refs, and I know what you mean about reading stuff and forgetting where you saw it. Would a photo of Simonds with Monty just before the battle help? I ran across one. I'll upload it, and post it here. Other than that, I've had no luck finding photos of the battle itself, although there obviously were combat photographers in the area at the time. Makes you wonder... Esseh 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, found it.It was the date that struck me. Just how much pressure was Simonds under? Anyway, use it if you like, or not. Esseh 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  As you may have noticed, I'm not great at wikimarkup.  If possible, could you allign that to the right side and add the "info" underneath?
Thanks
Cam 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. I'll do it now. Esseh 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm gradually getting rid of the unsourced statements (by citing them).  I'll continue to do so for the next few days.
Cam 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More editing, and a caution... 

message: I have failed this article as GA on a few points, although since I have tried to be complete in my criticism of the article you may get the impression that it is further off GA status than it actually is. Inf act, with a little more work I think it will probably be successful if you address a number of features and renominate it after the allowed time. The grounds I failed its nomination on are insufficient use of images, and failures on the grounds of breadth of coverage and citations. I will explain each of these in detail below:
*The use of images is not sufficient, in my opinion - there is no either map of or photograph of the ridge, which seems to be essential in such an article, surely, and many of the images used are really only consequential or marginal to the article - eg the photo of German rocket launcher is no more relevant to this article than to any article on the battle pf normandy. Photos of more relevance here would surely be of the ridge, of any associated war graves, a portrait of the Simonds, or all of the above.I've managed to find a variety of images and diagrams within the original documents that I used for a variety of my citations, particularly the Roman Jarymowycz one.  I will continue to work on this over the next little while
*I always think you can't go too obvious in an article intro - you never know who is reading or how familiar they are with the topic. I would therefore change the intro sentence to "The Battle of Verrières Ridge was a series of engagements fought as pasrt of the Battle for Normandy during the Second World War. The main combatants were the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division and elements of the German 12th and 9th SS Panzer Divisions from July 19 - July 25, 1944" Done
*Your citations and footnotes are interspersed, you should consider alternative notation that allows you to so separate footnote/commentary from citations of texts. I think at this moment this would only enhance my next point though...Or....I could simply cut the footnotes altogether and include the information from them in the actual article
*Insufficient citations - the article is missing cites for several critical statements and the density of citations is lowHas undergone serious revamping
*Poor citation format - no page numbers for many of the cites provided from published works.
*I think the "Impact/Effect" section needs completely reworking - there is an over-emphasis on a modern-day documentary and too little on contemporary reaction to the loss. Was it reported widely at the time, did it have impact on Canadian morale, did it set back their efforts to break out of Caen etc? ie, more analysis as well as just straightforward reporting of the facts. A modern documentary on the battle can be used as a source of information but is not part of the story itself.
Good luck with taking the article forward and with eventual renomination. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written FAIL PASS
The prose is generally good, and the article gives a clear description of both the action and its consequences. As a general observation the article would benefit from a light copyedit to improve flow in some places, where consecutive sentences are disjointed and transitions are rather abrupt.
Specific issues are:
*Lead: While this does broadly cover the substance of the article (per WP:LEAD), I think it could be expanded to give a little more detail.
*Inline citations: these need to follow end-of-sentence punctuation with no spacing (I spotted a couple of problematic cites, which I fixed, but another check through wouldn't hurt!)
:::I also reformatted the websites to fit the Cite Web Template, and I'm in the process of doing another check on the entire article (I'm on Verrieres & Spring at the moment).  On that subject, by "end of sentence punctuation", do you mean that the cites can't go after commas within the sentence?  If that's the case, I'm slightly concerned, as I've got several sentences with upwards of 3 or 4 cites within the sentence, spread out between the comma and the period.  I was under the impression that it was "any punctuation such as commas, semi-colans, or periods" Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies again - I should have been more specific. Mid-sentence cites are OK, though to be discouraged if possible for readability reasons. I don't have any issue with yours though - it's great to see such a well-cited article ;) EyeSerenetalk 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you!  I figure overkill on the citation was better than failing the category again. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks!  I've got a few formatting & expansion things I plan to do after this process so that it's ready for an A-Class nomination (such as expanding the background, and discussing the actual casualties in more detail). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That's good news, since I heard otherwise from the guy who failed it last time. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, the joys of Wikipedia! If you don't mind changing them per my comment, that would be great. There is only one recommended format for these (see WP:LAY#Standard appendices and descriptions) - if you check other MilHist GAs, you'll find most of them follow this format. However, other than the strong preference for external links to be last, like many other things it is only a guideline. If you have good reasons for ordering them differently, I won't argue ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already shifted them back to the format you suggested. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Apologies - I should have been clearer. I was referring to the references in the "References" section, not the inline cites. As you've changed to using Harvard-style referencing (which I agree is better), your inline cites could be formatted using   (surrounded by ref tags per usual). As I said above though, the article is well referenced, and this is just a 'nice to have', not a GA stumbling block. It won't fail if this isn't addressed ;) One thing I did notice though was the presence of a couple of web-cites in your Footnotes. These really should use , or at least have the retrieval dates in there somewhere. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As long as it's the same photo, that should be fine. If the version in the archives is better quality, it may even be a good idea to upload that instead. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't worry too much about time - as long as there's constructive work in progress, I won't fail the article. I think one has to apply common sense with GA holds, and as you mentioned we are working across an 8-hour time difference! If you feel under pressure, getting rid of the maps would be one solution, although it would be a shame as they do add a lot to the article. Doing that won't affect this assessment though. And yes, just drop me a note if you need a hand. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your review.  I'm glad to see that the issues needing to be addressed are relatively easy to solve (at least it's nothing major like Criterion 2, 3, or 4, as it was last time).  Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just checked the copyright for Canadian Archival Images.  All Images in the National Archives of Canada (including Verrieres Under Fire & the Nebelwerfer) taken before 1949 are considered to be Public Domain.  There's that one taken care of, and now I just need to determine the maps and I should be fine. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Damn, that's a GOOD copyedit.  Thanks for that.  I think the prose of the entire article significantly benefited from your improvements (it almost seems like you do this GA & Copyedit thing lots.  Oh, wait, that's because you do ;).
*Anyways, I've been going back through the article, and I've found a few more naming conventions of Verrières that I missed, which is odd, because I did a lot of the naming convention copyediting before you reviewed this.  Still, there's a few that are always missed.
*I'm now in the process of changing the cite template to match the ones that are formatted using the correct template.
Issues on the images shall be resolved after Monday, as I have virtually nothing happening for the rest of the week after then, so I'll have time to recreate at least one of the maps on Tuesday & Wednesday. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very kind, but I really didn't do that much! I think the maps are the last remaining major issue, so once that's sorted (pending a final check-through), we'll be there. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks pretty good - nice to see a splash of colour! I should also have mentioned Inkscape (another open-source  package), which is actually better for doing some map-type graphics like icons and labels (and can save files in svg format, which GIMP can't). We're making progress! EyeSerenetalk 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten a bit busy with some other wikipedia projects (Notably Operation Totalize & Second Battle of Passchendale.  I've also decided that my map-editing skills are abysmal.  If you have any time (which I understand if you don't) could you take a crack at the other one?  I appreciate all of your help in this GA Review Process. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fine. I'll have a fair amount of spare time coming up next week, though restricted internet access, so it'll give me something to do ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks.  I think we should be good after that.  In the meantime, I'm going to continue to expand the lead a bit. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank-you!!  You have no idea how happy I am that this is finally GA.  This is almost 13 months in the making.  Thanks for all your help with the assessments! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, and I'm glad your hard work has paid off! FA next...? ;) EyeSerenetalk 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going for A-Class first, then heading for the Big-FA.  I might try and recruit a few of you guys from "The Team" once I've got it up to A for a few final assistances. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: 1:  On the subject of "well-written"
*I have already scrapped the "see also" section
*I have had three different people tell me three different layouts for the "see also, refs, notes" bit, and this has been changed by several people.  Although if you want me to change it back to "notes, refs", I can easily do so.
::Ah, the joys of Wikipedia! If you don't mind changing them per my comment, that would be great. There is only one recommended format for these (see WP:LAY#Standard appendices and descriptions) - if you check other MilHist GAs, you'll find most of them follow this format. However, other than the strong preference for external links to be last, like many other things it is only a guideline. If you have good reasons for ordering them differently, I won't argue ;) EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already shifted them back to the format you suggested. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies - I should have been clearer. I was referring to the references in the "References" section, not the inline cites. As you've changed to using Harvard-style referencing (which I agree is better), your inline cites could be formatted using   (surrounded by ref tags per usual). As I said above though, the article is well referenced, and this is just a 'nice to have', not a GA stumbling block. It won't fail if this isn't addressed ;) One thing I did notice though was the presence of a couple of web-cites in your Footnotes. These really should use , or at least have the retrieval dates in there somewhere. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As long as it's the same photo, that should be fine. If the version in the archives is better quality, it may even be a good idea to upload that instead. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't worry too much about time - as long as there's constructive work in progress, I won't fail the article. I think one has to apply common sense with GA holds, and as you mentioned we are working across an 8-hour time difference! If you feel under pressure, getting rid of the maps would be one solution, although it would be a shame as they do add a lot to the article. Doing that won't affect this assessment though. And yes, just drop me a note if you need a hand. EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your review.  I'm glad to see that the issues needing to be addressed are relatively easy to solve (at least it's nothing major like Criterion 2, 3, or 4, as it was last time).  Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just checked the copyright for Canadian Archival Images.  All Images in the National Archives of Canada (including Verrieres Under Fire & the Nebelwerfer) taken before 1949 are considered to be Public Domain.  There's that one taken care of, and now I just need to determine the maps and I should be fine. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! EyeSerenetalk 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In Rebuttal

message: You're doing a great job on this so far! To help out, I've swept the article for MoS issues, and conducted a light copyedit as I was going. There's now a few redlinks - that's fine for GA, and hopefully they'll eventually turn blue as the articles are created. If you want to remove them though, no problem ;)
I've also left a few comments in the markup on various things (eg there's an incomplete sentence in Verrières and Operation Spring). I moved a few cites where I felt they interfered with the readability of the text - as we discussed above, mid-sentence cites are not prohibited, but they can have this effect sometimes. It's accepted that the order of end-of-sentence cites (where there's more than one) reflect the order of the assertions made in that sentence, so this is pretty standard practice.
A couple of points for you to check:
*I'm not sure whether or not you use "armor" or "armour" in Canada. Both styles were present, so I changed these to "armour" for consistency. The article deals with a largely Canadian subject though, so should follow Canadian spelling. You may need to change them back?
*You might like to check the spelling of "Verrières" in the article to make sure it's consistent (spelt as in my quotes). I caught some, but there may be more.
All the best, and keep up the good work! EyeSerenetalk 10:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, that's a GOOD copyedit.  Thanks for that.  I think the prose of the entire article significantly benefited from your improvements (it almost seems like you do this GA & Copyedit thing lots.  Oh, wait, that's because you do ;).
*Anyways, I've been going back through the article, and I've found a few more naming conventions of Verrières that I missed, which is odd, because I did a lot of the naming convention copyediting before you reviewed this.  Still, there's a few that are always missed.
*I'm now in the process of changing the cite template to match the ones that are formatted using the correct template.
Issues on the images shall be resolved after Monday, as I have virtually nothing happening for the rest of the week after then, so I'll have time to recreate at least one of the maps on Tuesday & Wednesday. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very kind, but I really didn't do that much! I think the maps are the last remaining major issue, so once that's sorted (pending a final check-through), we'll be there. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reviewer comments

message: Ok, I managed to use that awesome GIMP photo-converter & editor that you recommended to modify, tweak, & redo the Geography of Verrieres.  I know.  It won't be on the Featured Picture List. But still, better than nothing.  I shall have the Operation Spring one by tomorrow at 10:00PM (North American Mountain Time, mind you).  Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good - nice to see a splash of colour! I should also have mentioned Inkscape (another open-source  package), which is actually better for doing some map-type graphics like icons and labels (and can save files in svg format, which GIMP can't). We're making progress! EyeSerenetalk 14:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten a bit busy with some other wikipedia projects (Notably Operation Totalize & Second Battle of Passchendale.  I've also decided that my map-editing skills are abysmal.  If you have any time (which I understand if you don't) could you take a crack at the other one?  I appreciate all of your help in this GA Review Process. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's fine. I'll have a fair amount of spare time coming up next week, though restricted internet access, so it'll give me something to do ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks.  I think we should be good after that.  In the meantime, I'm going to continue to expand the lead a bit. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Following my earlier review, and with all issues now addressed (save the final map which will be uploaded shortly!), I am satisfied that this article meets the good article criteria and have passed it as a good article. It has been listed as such at WP:GA, and the various templates above have been updated to reflect this pass.
Congratulations, and well done! EyeSerenetalk 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you!!  You have no idea how happy I am that this is finally GA.  This is almost 13 months in the making.  Thanks for all your help with the assessments! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, and I'm glad your hard work has paid off! FA next...? ;) EyeSerenetalk 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going for A-Class first, then heading for the Big-FA.  I might try and recruit a few of you guys from "The Team" once I've got it up to A for a few final assistances. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA pass 

message: I'm sure it's just stupid oversight on my part, but this suggests ~300 casualties, yet we say 2600...that's a hell of a discrepency, what am I missing? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Here's where the discrepancy comes from (and you're right, that is a big discrepancy).  Firstly, those are the "killed" statistics for Operation Atlantic, whereas the total casualty rate for that operation was 1100-1350, keeping in mind that a majority of the casualties were those who were wounded.  If we add the frequently used figure of 1,500 casualties (500 killed, 1000 wounded or captured) for Operation Spring, then that adds up to somewhere between 2,600 and 2,900.  I've got plans to add a section on casualties after the GA review is done, so as to clear up that confusion.  Don't worry, it's not a stupid oversight, it's a legit concern. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to casualty statistics, everyone's gonna say something different.  I just find that you have to read the wording quite carefully in the source, and simply go with whichever number is more frequently used.  I'm running into difficulty with that for the Operation Atlantic Statistics.  Some of my sources say 1100 casualties, others say 1,349 casualties, so I'm trying to find a few more sources that say one or the other. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, that was a big part of the problem, we should definitely separate "fatalities" from "wounded" in the statistics if we're able to find the separate numbers :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  03:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've got approximations (it comes out to about 800 dead, anywhere from 1800-2000 wounded and/or captured), which I can add in once the GA Process is done.  It will be almost impossible to find any real number for the Spring Casualties.  I have yet to find a source where they didn't round it to 500 killed, 1,000 wounded or captured.  As mentioned, I'm planning to add in a big section in Aftermath Discussing that after the GA is finished. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clear it up for anyone else who looks at it, you may want to state "2600+ killed, wounded or captured". Just an observation.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  i'll do that right away. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination.  It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please.  The survey will end on April 30.
* Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
Personally, I've been fortunate enough to be working with a GA reviewer with whom i've worked with previously. I find that if the article receives a "quick fail", then you really don't get a lot of feedback from the reviewer.  However, if the GA is placed "On hold", then the editor is sort of required to give you a second opinion, so as to justify the "On Hold".  as you can probably see if you scroll through the "on hold", Eyeserene & I have been conversing back and forth almost continuously, resolving issues & bandying ideas & questions back and forth.
I find it all depends upon the reviewer.  During the first GA Review this article went under, I would have loved more feedback.  During this one, I think we sort of "overkilled" on feedback.  If you get an editor who REALLY knows MoS, it's all good.Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: ;Updating page numbers for footnotes
I haven't done this yet but here are links to the original articles, showing the original page references:
* Jarymowycz (1993) pp 75-89
* Copp (1992) pp 45–63
* Simonds (1992) pp. 65–68
It should just be a matter of adding the existing page numbers to the actual magazine page numbers, ie Jarymowycz (1993), p. 4. becomes Jarymowycz (1993), p. 78 and Copp (1992), p. 3. becomes Copp (1992) p. 47 etc. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for all of your help.  I'll get to work on that stuff ASAP. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 18:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done then now (and Simonds). --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-FAC copy-edit 

message: Number 26: BBC: People's War 
Is this citation this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/99/a2805699.shtml
--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referance 

message: and took place from July 19 – July 25, 1944, being part of both Operation Atlantic (July 18 – 21) and Operation Spring (July 25 – 27).
To me this doesnt make sence.  Was taking this ridgeline a key objective of both operations or was it just part of Atlantic and overran?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cam can probably answer this better than I, but it was both (in a sense). Originally part of Atlantic, it was only marginally successful, so a second attempt was planned as part of Spring. It's all there in the article ;) EyeSerenetalk 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have probably read the article - i just glanced the intro when getting the spelling of the ridge for another article earlier.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Eyeserene's right.  Incidentally, I'll assume that would be Goodwood that you copied it for....we're actually making some headway in citing that article. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro question 

message: I am not sure what guns means in this sentence : Taking advantage of this respite, I SS Panzer Corps reinforced the ridge with an additional four battalions, 480 tanks, and 500 guns. Does it mean artillery, mortar, machine guns, rifles ? Thanks in advance. Poppy (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally in a military context, 'gun' is taken to mean a large-calibre weapon, so in this case it refers to artillery and anti-tank guns rather than machine guns and rifles (although just to confuse things further, sometimes machine guns are given this label too). Mortars operate differently, so they would never be classified as guns, and neither would, for example, rocket artillery, which the Germans also had plenty of. It's a sometimes confusing convention to those unfamiliar with military terminology (a bit like when does one call a 'boat' a 'ship', and vice versa). Hope this helps ;) EyeSerenetalk 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does :). Thanks. Poppy (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure whether rocket-artillery was counted among this, although I will definitely check the sources. Cam (Chat) 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - I think we had this conversation somewhere before :P EyeSerenetalk 07:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on one sentence 

message: now its "However, on 6 June, the effective strength of the 12th SS Panzer Division was 20,540 men and 150 tanks.[42] By 23 August, it was reduced to "weak infantry elements, no tanks, no artillery".[41] The similarly-sized 1st SS Panzer Division had been reduced by 23 August to 300 men and ten tanks." 
i ask whats the sense of this quote? the quote is about 2 months this battle lasted only for 6 days ( 1/10 of the time . i cant understand the logic .  should we got to all battle where we dont know casualties and write some other figures ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties section 

message: i think there is a problem. i think the 12 SS only parcipated in atlantic a bit because at the same time its mentioned as full division in goodwood . so we have a division which took part in different operation at the same time ( logic improvement would be to mention that only elements took part, but iam sure u dont want this) after goodwood the 12 SS was reserve for I SS panzercorps . so i guess there were no battles in spring . history of the unit supports this. hohenstauffen i guess took not part in atlantic... ( not sure ) . is there a evidence that the essex faced 12 SS in atlantic? and not 1 SS for example? same problem with 1 SS .... .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  forces involed 

message: sentence out of the text:
*"Two powerful formations—the 12th SS Panzer Division and ..." 
text out of the charnwood article:
"The 12th SS Panzer Division—by the end of the battle reduced to a battalion-sized infantry unit[75]"
the old problem, when it comes to the casualties geran units suffered so heavy but some days later they are in the infobox listed as full panzerdivisions. And the reader shall think the forces were equal. Nothing else than manipulation...  Sorry but thats it... Blablaaa (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the old problem 

message: I was watching today a documentary on Verrières Ridge battle made by David O'Keefe, on History channel. Comparing to the article in Wikipedia I see few mistakes.
On the grave of Major Phil Griffin is written he was 26 years old, also they say in the documentary that Major Phil Griffin was actually 5th in the rank when operation  "Spring" started.
Please verify those:)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.114.155 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the article refs you'll see the information about Phil Griffin is sourced to Terry Copp (Copp, Terry (1999b). "The Toll of Verrières Ridge", Legion Magazine (May/June 1999). Ottawa: Canvet Publications). The article is online here, in which Copp claims Griffin was 24 and that command fell to him after his two seniors had been killed. It's perfectly possible that either Copp or O'Keefe or both have made mistakes, but certainly if you know of a picture of the grave that would be useful in verifying Griffin's actual age. EyeSerenetalk 08:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Page 76 of 'The Brigade, the fifth Canadian Infantry Brigade in WWII' by Copp (1992) also gives 24.Keith-264 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  24-year-old Major Phil Griffin (Black Watch) 

message: I'm a bit puzzled at the notion of an article in which it is stated a battle is the most controversial and critically analyzed battle in Canadian military history, and then not find mention or a link to the article on The Valour and the Horror. 
I've therefore added two mentions in the "historiography" para at the end
*C.P. Stacey wrestled with how to describe the battle in the official history - he talks about this in his autobiography, and in fact as I recall, Simonds, who was CIGS at the time, required him to make some minor changes to his wording in the draft(s) he presented. I don't believe too much can be concluded from that, but it is nonetheless significant. Deserves a mention, and so I did, with the appropriate source indicated
*The Valour and the Horror is the reason this battle is the "most controversial" in history. If not for the TV show introducing this to the public, it would not be part of that conversation. In short, few would have heard of it, or care, outside of academia. The controversy is mostly scholars and military types explaining and apologizing to casual observers. These deserves to be mentioned in the article also, otherwise, the battle itself is far less controversial than Hong Kong or Dieppe by dint of the casualty count alone. Hong Kong's casualty rate was 100%. 198.161.2.241 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Tidied page, resized a couple of maps and headers.Keith-264 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Shuffled citations to the ends of sentences for flow.Keith-264 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tidied references, checked url's separated media sources alphabetically.Keith-264 (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: The Canadian units had "official" or standard short form unit designations:
*The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada used the short form RHC (for Royal Highlanders of Canada)
*The Calgary Highlanders used the short form Calg Highrs
Should the map not be amended to show this common usage? Most reputable military histories use the official naming conventions.174.0.48.147 (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect unit abbreviations on maps 

message: I was surprised to see that I've been here before and perhaps it shows how much I've learned since, that I think that the editors of the article have used sources that contain an outmoded and untenable view of events. Operation Atlantic was a failure? Operation Totalize part of the general Allied advance? I don't doubt their good faith, given the age of the piece but it does look one-sided now, more a brief for the prosecution than a NPOV article. Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Impressions