Talk:2nd Parachute Brigade in Southern France/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is a bit awkward - I think that this is a good example of an article where the title shouldn't be included in the first sentence (which isn't a requirement where it doesn't work)

Changed

"As a withdrawal from France at the earliest opportunity had been the original intent" - it should be specified that this was the intent for only the British brigade, and not the entire invasion force - the current wording implies that this was a 'hit and run' type operation.

Changed

I was gathering details for his article but I can unlink until completed. Its not going to be any time soon.

"The second invasion of France during the Second World War" - counting the German one, it was at least the third. Given that France was also invaded by the Italians, raided repeatedly by the Allies and the Germans took over Vichy France in 1942 it's difficult to say how many times the country was 'invaded', and I'd suggest tweaking this wording to avoid giving a number as it's not really necessary.

Changed wording.

The wording on the composition of the 1st Airborne Task Force is confusing - it starts with 'The task force comprised three infantry battalions of the American 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team,' which suggests that this was the main unit, but then keeps adding extra units. I think that this and the subsequent para need to be re-written so they flow better. Stating that the task force included the "only glider infantry battalion" is confusing as each US airborne division had several glider infantry battalions.

Changed

Was the 2nd Brigade really "the only Allied airborne force already in Italy"? The 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team article implies that it was also in Italy at the time.

Yes I see that, its conflicting data so I have removed the line as it not important to the article.

I might be missing something, but the article doesn't seem to identify where the 2nd AB Brigade embarked on their aircraft.

They departed from four unnamed airfield around Italy, so with no further details did not include it.

It seem odd to say that "Brigadier Pritchard was one of the lucky ones" given that the paragraph states that the brigade HQ was the only unit to not be affected by the problems with landing the force.

Changed wording

When writing about the 6th Battalion, the article states that only 60% of its men landed in the intended drop zone and that it only had 317 men by the end of the day. However, it is also stated "But most of the battalion's companies were relatively intact when they headed for their objectives." on the day of the landing - this seems contradictory.

Changed wording

What's the relevance of the photo of Tatars in the Ostlegionen? The caption to the image on Commons states that it was taken in northern France during 1943 and the article doesn't state that the 2nd AB Brigade faced Tatar soldiers. As the article notes, the Germans conscripted men from many nationalities into Ostlegionen units so they might not actually be representative of the soldiers the brigade fought.

Image deleted

Also on the topic of photos, it should be noted that the photo of the "Vickers machine gun team from the 5th (Scottish) Parachute Battalion" was taken in Athens several months after this operation, especially as it depicts them firing their gun from the roof of a building during urban fighting rather than the kind of fighting which seems to have predominated in this operation.

Image deleted

Did the brigade take part in any of the fighting between Grasse and Cannes after it was sent to this area?

Not that's recorded, which is strange with the urgency they were sent there.

While not relevant to this GA nomination, it would be worth checking the British official history to see if it has any further details on this operation - the volumes on the fighting in the Mediterranean have a reputation for being very detailed. Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and find a copy. Unfortunately unlike all other British airborne operations this one has very little written about it.
I have added another image, in the D-Day section.

Thanks for the review Nick, all done I believe. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good to me Jim. Great work once again. Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]