307:
there should be substantial coverage of the living standards the troops endured and how they were deployed (eg, the rotation of units in and out of the front line), changes in tactics, the impact on civilians, the massive logistical efforts, the post-war remediation of the ruined towns and farmland (which is still continuing, with farmers regularly finding unexplored ordinance) and how the campaign has been commemorated at remembered. There's a vast literature on all of these topics which can be drawn on. This would be a risky choice for an 11 November TFA given it's not really an example of
Knowledge (XXG) at it's best - it's really Knowledge (XXG) at an adequate level at present.
684:
Somme 1916 is
Anglocentric, the Nivelle Offensive began well with the British attack at Arras and the French part inflicted huge casualties on the Germans; although there was no French breakthrough, the 2nd Battle of the Aisne captured more ground than any earlier offensive. The French mutinies coincided with Joffre's plan that the British would conduct a summer offensive in Flanders while the French army had a rest, so the significance of the mutinies can be overstated. Revising the prose and adding citations to this article is only the start.
202:
136:
683:
The
Schleffen Plan section is all wrong, the Entente was France, Russia and Britain, not every state at war with the Central Powers, there's a gap between the Marne and 1st Ypres, Verdun 1916 was an attrition attack to prepare the way for an attempt at a decisive battle, not a substitute for one, the
322:
Nick's points seem fair in hindsight (and are in stark contrast to the lack of intellectual rigor put into my own comment below). I still feel that its probably "good enough" that delisting would be too extreme, but can agree that there are other aspects of the topic that would need to be covered
624:
I've thought about this a bit, and agree with Keith. I don't think that criterion 1b is met as the article doesn't cover a range of key topics related to its subject. 1c is also not met as it does not provide a sufficiently through review of the literature on the topic. That said, the efforts by
306:
While I'm somewhat reluctant to support delisting at this stage, the article falls well short of modern FA standards - it's really a GA. For a modern FA, I'd expect to see thematic discussions of important aspects of this campaign, and not just a high level summary of the fighting. For instance,
416:(and whoever else is working on this), I can see some recent activity and am happy to keep open while it's being worked on. Agree it is a broad/important article that'd be good to keep featured if possible. I'll nag again in a fortnight.
459:
Looks OK now apart from the external links. The fourth one 'Information and multimedia' I get in in an eastern? alphabet. The last one goes to the publication details - presumably it is supposed to go to a page?
269:
G'day, I've tried to tidy it up a little, and added some refs where I could find things in my (sadly limited) home library. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few citation needed tags. These are my edits:
474:
G'day, Dudley, I have simply removed the
Information and Multimedia link as I couldn't work out what had happened. I have converted the other link to a Further reading entry. Regards,
237:
Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books.
82:
129:
The use of
Mustard gas has it that it was fired in the first gas shells, rather than it was fired in gas shells for the first time on 10 July at Nieuport.
40:
106:
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been 11 years since its promotion, and it is currently tagged as needing citation.
445:. It seems basically a good article but the review has been open for nearly six months and there are still far too many 'citations needed's.
744:
693:
676:
662:
634:
619:
603:
578:
557:
547:
523:
500:
483:
469:
454:
431:
391:
375:
354:
332:
316:
294:
282:
264:
246:
228:
196:
181:
167:
115:
708:
30:
17:
719:
610:
I think that the technical shortcomings have been resolved but the content leaves much to be desired. I'd fail it on B2. Regards
518:. I'm not sure what we're going to run on 11 November this year and next; this is the only top-level WWI FA we've got. - Dank (
740:
658:
427:
255:
The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further?
72:
543:
479:
278:
158:
I don't think that it's a bad article but perhaps needs a spring-clean to take in later accounts and analyses.
177:
574:
496:
465:
450:
388:
328:
291:
539:
475:
411:
274:
515:
599:
350:
130:
689:
615:
260:
242:
224:
216:
192:
163:
734:
652:
421:
173:
384:
I think we have the sources to fix referencing, and we'll get someone else to deal with prose.
570:
569:- article now appears to be appropriately sourced, with all "citation needed" tags addressed.
492:
461:
446:
403:
385:
324:
288:
94:
672:
630:
535:
G'day, I think I've rectified the remaining "citation needed" tags now. These are my edits:
312:
61:
595:
371:
346:
111:
273:
I probably can't help much more, sorry. Please feel free to adjust as desired. Regards,
685:
644:
611:
585:
553:
519:
345:
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing.
256:
238:
220:
188:
159:
730:
648:
417:
53:
323:
were this article to go through an FA review today. (TLDR = I am impaled on fence).
594:
Are you satisfied with the changes made, or are there remaining issues to address?
145:
Most of the battle sections are too big now that so many more have decent articles.
726:
668:
640:
626:
589:
308:
57:
367:
107:
715:, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the
530:
647:, can you specify what material you think is missing or underrepresented?
366:. Thank you for the work done so far; still tagged as needing citation.
187:
Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together?
151:
The prose is too bitty in places with paragraphs of inconsistent length.
154:
Some of the pics, maps, etc could do with moving to avoid cluttering.
39:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at
625:
multiple editors to improve the article have been impressive.
287:
thank you. We are indeed trying to find proper sourcing
219:
about the casualties statistics citations and references.
172:
I note that it lacks a 'Prelude' to put this in context.
536:
271:
65:
752:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
552:Thanks again (and again and again), AR. - Dank (
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
758:No further edits should be made to this page.
725:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article review
514:. I just asked (one last time) for help at
126:The Schlieffen Plan section is obsolete.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article review
148:The consequences section lacks nuance.
7:
85:; nominator and main editor retired
24:
200:
134:
694:11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
677:10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
667:Please see my comments above.
663:10:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
635:08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
620:19:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
604:19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
579:05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
558:15:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
548:11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
524:19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
501:08:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
484:12:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
470:12:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
333:09:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
317:01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
64:) 4:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
1:
197:15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
182:11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
168:20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
116:20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
745:14:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
83:WikiProject Military history
455:16:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
73:Western Front (World War I)
775:
432:06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
392:19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
376:20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
355:20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
283:01:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
265:14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
247:13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
229:09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
755:Please do not modify it.
295:01:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
36:Please do not modify it.
720:featured article review
31:featured article review
131:Operation Strandfest
217:User talk:Woogie10w
215:I left a note with
709:removal candidate
98:
91:
87:
766:
757:
724:
718:
593:
540:AustralianRupert
534:
476:AustralianRupert
415:
412:AustralianRupert
407:
275:AustralianRupert
208:
204:
203:
142:
138:
137:
93:
90:
79:
48:The article was
38:
774:
773:
769:
768:
767:
765:
764:
763:
762:
753:
729:goes through.
722:
716:
583:
528:
409:
401:
341:
201:
199:
135:
133:
104:
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
772:
770:
761:
760:
748:
747:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
681:
680:
679:
607:
606:
581:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
437:
436:
435:
434:
395:
394:
379:
359:
358:
340:
337:
336:
335:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
250:
249:
234:
233:
232:
231:
210:
209:
156:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
127:
123:
122:
103:
102:Review section
100:
89:
88:
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
771:
759:
756:
750:
749:
746:
742:
739:
736:
732:
728:
721:
714:
710:
706:
703:
702:
695:
691:
687:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
660:
657:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
605:
601:
597:
591:
587:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
559:
555:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
537:
532:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
502:
498:
494:
490:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:
439:
438:
433:
429:
426:
423:
419:
413:
405:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
390:
387:
383:
380:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
357:
356:
352:
348:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
296:
293:
290:
286:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
184:
183:
179:
175:
174:Cinderella157
170:
169:
165:
161:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
132:
128:
125:
124:
120:
119:
118:
117:
113:
109:
101:
99:
96:
86:
84:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
754:
751:
737:
712:
705:Closing note
704:
655:
571:Anotherclown
566:
554:push to talk
520:push to talk
511:
493:Dudley Miles
488:
462:Dudley Miles
447:Dudley Miles
441:
440:
424:
404:Auntieruth55
381:
363:
362:
344:
339:FARC section
325:Anotherclown
305:
205:
171:
157:
139:
105:
92:
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
538:. Regards,
596:Nikkimaria
386:auntieruth
347:Nikkimaria
289:auntieruth
81:Notified:
731:Cas Liber
711:has been
686:Keith-264
649:Cas Liber
645:Keith-264
612:Keith-264
586:Keith-264
418:Cas Liber
257:Keith-264
239:Keith-264
221:Keith-264
189:Keith-264
160:Keith-264
741:contribs
713:delisted
707:: This
659:contribs
428:contribs
121:I concur
54:Casliber
50:delisted
512:Comment
95:WP:URFA
669:Nick-D
641:Nick-D
627:Nick-D
590:Nick-D
516:WT:MIL
442:Delist
389:(talk)
364:Delist
309:Nick-D
292:(talk)
58:FACBot
639:Okay
368:DrKay
108:DrKay
16:<
735:talk
690:talk
673:talk
653:talk
643:and
631:talk
616:talk
600:talk
588:and
575:talk
567:Keep
544:talk
531:Dank
497:talk
489:Keep
480:talk
466:talk
451:talk
422:talk
408:and
400:ok,
382:Keep
372:talk
351:talk
329:talk
313:talk
279:talk
261:talk
243:talk
225:talk
206:Done
193:talk
178:talk
164:talk
140:Done
112:talk
62:talk
56:via
727:bot
97:nom
52:by
743:)
723:}}
717:{{
692:)
675:)
661:)
633:)
618:)
602:)
577:)
556:)
546:)
522:)
499:)
491:.
482:)
468:)
453:)
430:)
374:)
353:)
331:)
315:)
281:)
263:)
245:)
227:)
195:)
180:)
166:)
114:)
67:.
33:.
738:·
733:(
688:(
671:(
656:·
651:(
629:(
614:(
598:(
592::
584:@
573:(
542:(
533::
529:@
495:(
478:(
464:(
449:(
425:·
420:(
414::
410:@
406::
402:@
370:(
349:(
327:(
311:(
277:(
259:(
241:(
223:(
191:(
176:(
162:(
110:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.