Talk:German invasion of the Netherlands/GA2

GA Review

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

Comment well it looks like us three got everything. Chris, is there anything remaining?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Background section
- In the last sentence of fourth paragraph, put "(Indonesia since 1949)" after Dutch East Indies. Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the last sentence of the fifth paragraph, change "...in January 1940 (the Mechelen incident)." to "...in January 1940 in what becamse known as the Mechelen incident." Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the final sentence of the final paragraph, why did Britain and France refuse the Netherlands in joining the Allies side in 1940? Elaborate.
  - I think it was the Netherlands who refused; they hoped to still remain neutral. Comments? Diannaa ^TALK 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now edited the sentence so the meaning is clear. Diannaa ^TALK 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch Army subsection
- In the seventh sentence of the lead paragraph, change this to that. Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also how much is NLG1.5 million worth today even though that the Netherlands' currency is now in €?
  - NLG 1.5 million would buy you €680,670 today. Diannaa ^TALK 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The €680,670 number reflects the 2002 exchange rate, the year the currency was converted. It wouldn't be very helpful to give the reader an idea about the purchasing power in the early thirties. I've been unable to find exact data for military goods but the general price level in that period was about fifteen to twenty times lower than today. However, it seems like a bit of OR to indicate this.--MWAK (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the final sentence of the third paragraph, why did the Netherlands' attempt to procure captured Soviet armor in Finland fail?
  - The occupation of Norway and Denmark by Germany would likely be why....--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed so; it was the Dutch envoy in Norway who had been ordered on 30 March to contact the Finnish and he had quite other things on his mind after 8 April...--MWAK (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would imagine. Thanks MWAK.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch defensive strategy subsection Positioning of troops sub-subsection.
- In the eighth sentence of the opening paragraph, why was Reijinders forced to resign? Done He was forced to resign because he disagreed with his superiors about where and how the defense should be set up. I have re-worded this sentence. Diannaa ^TALK 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch defensive strategy subsection Coordinating with Belgium sub-subsection.
- Add the rank of British military leader in 1936 in the fifth sentence of the second paragraph. Done If you mean Montgomery, his rank in 1939 was Major-general. Diannaa ^TALK 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch defensive strategy subsection Risk of air assault sub-subsection.
- Move entire section between Army and Air for subsections. Done Diannaa ^TALK 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Also how many Anti-Aircraft (A-A) guns did the Dutch have in the third sentence?[reply]
French strategy subsection
- In the third sentence of the second paragraph, why did the French abandon their light airborne tank design in 1940 that they had planned four years earlier?
  - It seems they had no cargo planes large enough to carry them AMR 35#Airborne tank. Do you wish this incorporated into the article? Diannaa ^TALK 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Chris (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Done Diannaa ^TALK 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geman stragtegy subsection
- Add 1939 after 19 October and remove 1939 after 15 November in the opening paragraph. Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Oster affair section.
- What happened to Oster afterwards on this affair? No explanation was given.
  - He was a leading figure of the German resistance from 1938 to 1943, and was one of those hanged after the July 20 1944 bomb plot. Do you wish this incorporated into the article? Diannaa ^TALK 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. Chris (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Done Diannaa ^TALK 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle section
- For all times listed, please put them either in 12-hour or 24-hour times. Also list what time zone or zones that battle took place. Done Diannaa ^TALK 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 May subsection
- In the second sentence of the third paragraph, change "Ju-52" to "Ju 52". Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change the sixth sentence of the fourth paragraph from "None of the airfiels was thus capable of receiving substanive reinforcements." to "None of the airfields were thus capable of receiving substanial reinforcements." Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11 May subsection
- In the fifth paragraph's third sentence, use {{Convert}} for the 10 to 30 km distance mentioned. Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 May subsection
- In the third sentence of the final paragraph, confirm that Belgian and British divisions were part of the battle.
  - Where?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Germans had feared that they might become involved and this suggests they indeed did participate. We must explicitly indicate they did not.--MWAK (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Done Diannaa ^TALK 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13 May subsection
- For the opening paragraph's fifth sentence, change "yet be" to "have been". Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the second sentence of the fourth paragraph, change "...wasted on..." to "...decimated in...". Done For the third sentence, change "mowed" to "gunned". Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use {{Covert}} for the 5 mile in the fourth sentence of the final paragraph. Done Diannaa ^TALK 03:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14 May subsection
- In the fourth paragraph's fourth sentence, should "Regimett" be spelled "Regiment"? For the seventh sentence, what does Führer-Weisung Nr. 11 mean in English?

I've fixed the first issue that you stated and Führer-Weisung Nr. 11 means Führer-directive No. 11 in English.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I have placed the translation in the article. Diannaa ^TALK 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath section
- Where is the sourcing for this section? No citations are shown Done Diannaa ^TALK 04:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable.

Links that were in inline cites are valid.
Main issue has to do with a majority of the references being offline (i.e. book, magazines), making verification more challenging than usual.

Broad in coverage

Covers all aspects of the battle, including prelude, order, events, and aftermath.

Neutral

No issues. Looks good.

Stable

Last edit was done on 10 April.

Images

All images are valid.
For the Panzer I tank images in the German strategy and forces section, put 2005 in the caption.

Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 12 May subsection, put 2005 in the caption for The Grebbeberg caption.

Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the surrender of the Dutch Army section on Winkelman leaving the school, the caption is misleading since there is a Wehrmacht soldier on the left side of the image. Winkleman is actually in the center.

Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Hold. Minor things to do, but can be done to get to GA.

Reviewer: Chris (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that this is a co-nomination between three diffrent editors so there will be several diffrent people posting here :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just as long as it gets done. Chris (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed for GA. Good job. Chris (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]