Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Arras (1917)/Archive 1

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

Battle of Arras (1917)

Article worked up from stub, I think it now meets the criteria for A-Class, your comments and criticisms welcome. Carom 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article looks nice, but I haven't reviewed it yet. It's my understanding that articles should have passed Wikipedia:Good articles before being considered for A-class. (Because "A" is higher than "GA" and there have been issues where a-class articles haven't passed the GA-review. I assume that is because of lazy or inconsistent reviewers.) I hope I haven't misunderstood. Kirill? JRP 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no requirement for A-Class articles candidates to go through GA first; GA was mostly inserted into the overall quality scale as an afterthought, and tends to be more-or-less ignored within the project. Kirill Lokshin 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GA is actually considered by many to be a joke, because all it takes is one person's opinion... A class is generally recognized as the first level of serious articles by even FA reviewers...Balloonman 03:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Slight Support Hmmmmm... Deserves it, but not too sure about refrences. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have specific complaints about the references, let me know what they are (either here, or on my talk page) so I can address them. Carom 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it probably needs more research. For example:

They were opposed by two German formations, the Sixth Army under von Falkenhausen and [the] Second Army.

The Second Army commander is noticable by his absence.

What’s the source for the casualty figures? Dupuy puts the British casualties at 84,000; the Germans at 75,000

What were the strengths of the opposing armies?

The only map is illegible. Are there no others?

There are inconsistencies in date styles eg: 8 April, April 10th , 11 of April or May 10?

• Awkward phrasing and comma overuse:

By the evening of April 10th, most of these objectives, including Feuchy village, had been gained, although the Germans were still in control of large sections of trench in between Wancourt and Feuchy, particularly in the area of Neuville-Vitasse, which was heavily fortified.[6]

Beginning on 4 April, British artillery began a sustained bombardment of German positions in the region of Arras. 'Beginning' and 'began'.

With this objective in mind, on 3 May, the British launched another attack near the Scarpe.

With this objective in mind, the British launched another attack near the Scarpe on 3 May.

Or

The gains of the first two days were, by the standards of the Western front, nothing short of spectacular

By the standards of the Western front, the gains of the first two days were nothing short of spectacular.

After the initial assault failed to penetrate the German lines around Bullecourt, the area was subjected to heavy bombardment[,] in preparation for another assault by Australian troops.

• Lots of typos throughout.

Break through = Breakthrough

approsimately = approximately.

defenses or defences

Further north = Farther north Raymond Palmer 17:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking your points one at a time:

• I have not been able to locate information regarding the commander of the German second army, the sources I have only mention Falkenhausen. Found it, it was Georg von der Marwitz.
• For the British, Keegan uses a causalty figure of 150,000, Holmes uses a similar figure (he actually gives 4,000 average casualties a day over 35 days). G.J. Meyer (in A World Undone) gives 150,000 for the British, 108,000 for the Germans. I'll add citations.
• I have source information on the strengths, I'll add it. Actually, I only have info for the Vimy sector, I don't have information for the whole front.
• The map is a crop of the US Army map from Image:Western Front 1917.jpg - which is probably the reason it's difficult to read. I have a couple others, I'll see if one of them works better.
• As far as the style issues (and typos) go, I'll look at them, but I've already requested a proofread/copyedit from the League of copyeditors - although, if anyone else reading this wants to give it a shot, feel free. ; )

Thanks for your comments, I will try and address the issues you raised. Carom 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Another update regarding troop totals. I have not been able to locate any concrete evidence for actual strength, but the British fielded 21 divisions in the initial attack, so I have used a figure of apprx. 400,000 for the beginning of the assault. The Germans are much more difficult. Falkenhausen had only seven divisions on the front, and the rest in reserve, but it is unclear exactly how many. It's also unclear exactly how many divisions from the German Second Army participated in the fighting. Carom 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I believe I have addressed most of your specific complaints, and I have run back through the article to deal with your more general comments about awkward phrasing, comma overuse, typos, etc. The only thing I have not done is attempt to replace the map, but I will look into that tonight. Carom 16:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• One niggly little comment. I do believe the campaign box should include the Canadian and Australian flags as well (red & blue ensigns). Although fighting under overall British command, these were the militaries of independent nations at that time. Credit where it's due. (We've had the same discussion over at 2nd Ypres - and how to include Algerian and Moroccan troops). Esseh 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, I'v made some changes to the infobox, let me know what you think. Carom 19:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Carom, looks good to me. Esseh 03:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose lead is weak. For example consecutive sentences begining with the word "despite" and the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph. Sentences are often hard to read (eg the prose isn't excellent) and it needs to be proof read (EG "Wester Front")Balloonman 04:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Carom, I just re-worked the intro section for you and Balloonman. Let me know what you think. And again, having perused the rest of the article, I see that the South Africans and Newfies were in this, too. I suggest avoiding an overly British Empire POV and giving them credit, too. And for the flag box, I'd give equal status to the Can. and Oz flags (independent nations then and at Versailles) with the UK. Newfoundland was a self-governing part, so its green-white-pink flag could be under the Empire. Not sure about SA status back then. Hope I've helped a bit. Esseh 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work - I've made a couple of changes, but it looks pretty good. As far as the infobox goes, I have operated under the impression that the infobox was intended to list major combatants, and not been an exhaustive reference of the nationality of every combatant. For large scale actions like this, I would interpret that as being units of divisional size or larger - mainly to avoid bloating the box (it should also be noted that the use of flags in the infobox is "not recommended," but that's another issue entirely). I'm not opposed to including Newfoundland, etc., in the infobox, but I don't want to bloat it with (relatively) minor troop formations. I don't insist, through - particularly if you (or other users) think it's important. Carom 15:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carom, glad you liked it. (Someone ought to tell Balloonman, so he can pick on something else ;). I saw you took out the "Great War" at the end. I know it was redundant to the 1st sentence, but I've always been surprised how many kids have no idea WW I was called that. (And I thought it ended with a bit of literary flair - or licence?) As for the flags, well... I'll leave it to you. With that in mind, size is a relative thing. What was a small part of the Allied effort overall was a huge part of, say, the NFLD population. Also, size doesn't necessarily reflect ability. The Canadian Corps was what, 4 Div at its heighth, but with the Aussies, they became the "shock troops of the Empire". You are right about bloat, though. Maybe just flagless bullet points (or one listing all) beneath the UK for NF, SA (and the Kiwis?, or were they still part of the ANZACs?) Just my thoughts. Again, I tend to err on the side of "credit where it's due and damn the bloat.... but that's me. All the best. Esseh 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to check out a unit-level article I just started on the 5th Battalion Canadian Mounted Rifles. I could use some feedback there, if you've got a bit of time. Esseh 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment

Link - [1] to Chpater 8 of this book with relevant info on Arras:

Nicholson, G. W. L. 1962. Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War: Canadian Expeditionary Force 1914-1919.

I think it would good to add the three British Army commanders, Allenby, Horne and Gough in the Info box. Also, if we have Haig in the infobox as c-in-c, why not Ludendorff for the Germans?

Is it best to describe the victory as a ‘Tactical’ British victory? (see the Nicholson link provided above) Dupuy also calls it a tactical victory.

Are you sure the German Second Army was there. If so, it must have been a negligible contribution. Or am I wrong?

I think the aftermath needs improving. What happened to the commanders afterwards. Allenby was transferred to Palestine I think. What was the next phase for these armies? The link above has a good map that could be used, plus plenty of info to improve the article: esp: the Aftermath.

I’ve added a slightly better map – though it’s far from perfect.

Still needs further checking for prose errors. Raymond Palmer 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll adjust the infobox on the commanders to reflect your comments.

Initially, I had the outcome as "British Empire victory," but another user complained that this was not accurate (given that the British did not achieve a breakthrough). Personally, I think it may be sufficient to describe the result as a "British Empire victory," with a note that the deadlock on the fron continued.

I don't know for sure if 2nd Army was involved, but most of the sources mention (albeit briefly) the presence of troops from that formation in the Arras sector. I haven't any information on where they were located, or what their contribution was, just that they were in the sector.

I'll try and incorporate your suggestions on expanding the aftermath section.

Thanks for the improved map; I've also requested a custom map from another Wikipedian, although I don't know precisely what his/her timetable for finishing it will be.

Also, thanks (again) for you comments. Carom 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The article lacks context. Whilst it may well have been a diversionary attack it still had serious objectives, many of which it achieved. (I've posted what follows under "peer Review" elsewhere, which may have been the wrong place. If so, sorry, I'm new at this.)
  • Arras (town) was in the same position as Ypres - an Allied bulge extending into German-held territory and dominated by surrounding high ground (Vimy and Nore-Dame de Lorette). It was crucial to take this ground for any push in the area ever to work.
  • The ground had been fought bitterly over: from memory, two or three battles of Arras (British/Dominion} and two or three Battles of Artois (French). They had been extremely costly in men and matériel. and had therefore become iconic. ** There were huge advantages in straightening the line (a straight front line requires fewer men than a bendy one).
  • The Canadians fought at Vimy for the first time as a Corps. It is hugely significant to Canada. The Vimy battle plan (rolling barrage, bite and hold) was developed by the Canadian commander, Currie. This became the standard British/Dominion tactic. I know this is not the main article but these things need pointing up, i feel.
  • No mention of Currie among the commanders.
  • Large numbers of troops were moved up to the Front by narrow-gauge underground train: a first, I believe.
  • The formidable nature of the defences at Vimy are underplayed. Rupprecht of Bavaria (field marshal, crown prince, and thoroughly good chap) was in personal charge.
  • The component battles are insufficiently tied into the main battle and read as fragmented side-shows. Map?
  • Nomenclature: British and Dominion troops sits better perhaps than British Empire troops.

Roger 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome wherever you choose to make them, but I have responded to them at the peer review. Carom 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.