Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

Peer review

Self nomination: I have been working on this article for nearly a year now; although there have been many contributors most of the text is my own. The early versions were a bit rough, but I think that it has scrubbed up rather nicely. This is my first FAC, I will try to address any reservations as promptly as possible. This is a topic with many interesting facets which I believe will be of interest to the general reader. Gaius Cornelius 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title seems awkward; wondering if Kirill has suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent, a topic so specific is going to have a peculiar title; we could play around with the prepositions (e.g. "British anti-invasion preparations during World War II" or the placement "Anti-invasion preparations in Britain during World War II"), but I don't really think it makes a substantial difference. Kirill Lokshin 19:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do. To me, the "of" in "British anti-invasion preparations of World War II" reads oddly and awkwardly. Either of your suggested alternative is preferable IMO, though I tend to prefer the first as it starts with the key word "British". Matt 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

~~Comment~~ That lead needs to firmly establish the subject of the article from the start. At present it begins by providing the background to events. I think the lead should be more like: British anti-invasion preparations of World War II entailed a large scale programme of military and civilian mobilisation... etc/or something similar.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed: Point taken. I have updated the lead. Gaius Cornelius 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great article and a pleasure to read.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 00:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well researched, well written, comprehensive and extremely well illustrated article. --Nick Dowling 09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ref 68 needs replacing as it's a personal website. M3tal H3ad 11:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed: Reference replaced with an alternative, albeit less attractive, website. Gaius Cornelius 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a comprehensively well-written article about an interestingly quirky topic. njan 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well written and constructed article on a fascinating subject. Palmiped 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I say, this was an excellent read. You, sir, are to be commended for your work on the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As I said in the GA review, a really excellent article - both interesting and informative. Bob talk 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Although I'm unsure of why to place my vote given the two sub-topics. Alientraveller 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a stylistical suggestion:"the German army would not have penetrated further than GHQ Line and would ultimately have been defeated.[124][125][126][127]" In another case there are 3 citations in a row. I think this is not nice. There are ways to combine these citations in one, in order to avoid these annoying (at least for me!) series of references.--Yannismarou 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: In the particular instance you give, the statement is likely to be seen as quite contentious and I think it is only proper that it is backed up by multiple citations. Aside from any other issue, this does have the advantage that a reader who has no intention of taking the trouble to look at the footnotes will have confidence that a possibly surprising assertion is well backed up. In this case certainly, and probably in other cases that you will find, it would not really make sense to put multiple footnotes anywhere other than together. It would be possible to combine several citations into a single footnote, but this is not standard wikipedia practice - I cannot recall seeing any example of this being done. It is to be regretted that you find the format annoying, but I think it best to leave things as they are. Gaius Cornelius 17:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I agree; I think most of the instances of multiple references (aside possibly from one I introduced!) are warranted, and I think the way this article's referenced is one of its particular strong points. njan 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having made some edits to this article in the past, I found this to be an extremely interesting read, along with its sister article on hardened defences. I agree with the above, just a couple of times facts appear to be overcited - though could you find a cite or two for the last two paragraphs in Would the preparations have been effective? Also, I think this would make an excellent overview of remaining defences? Excellent job though. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have addressed the issue of multiple footnotes above and I just want to add that not all footnotes are citations. For example, some footnotes direct the reader to pictures that cannot, for one reason or another, be reproduced directly - your suggestion of the DOB database map being a case in point. I have added a reference to the map to the section Hardened field defences. Gaius Cornelius 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very good article... I'm going to use it as a reference for a major history project! Booksworm Talk to me! 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Just a nit-pick, but this struck me as potentially misleading: "...similar preparations in Belgium had been easily overrun by the well-equipped German Panzer divisions in the early weeks of 1940..." My understanding was that the prepared defenses along the Meuse were overrun with the help of airborne forces, rather than Panzers. See Fort Eben-Emael. — RJH (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sorry, I don't have my books to hand, but, as I recall the spectacular German success at Fort Eben-Emael was matched by an almost equally spectacular failure trying to take airfields around The Hague, all this happening in the first 48 hours or so of the invasion. The Belgians did have a series of fortified lines where as the Dutch relied more on the defensive advantages of their canals etc. The Germans managed to caputure a significant number of Dutch bridges and overrunning the Belgian lines one after another. Meanwhile, the French and British were drawn north into Belgium in order to help, but in so doing abandoned their own prepared positions. Gaius Cornelius 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The potential use of piers

Thank you for the invitation to comment.

The article is a good treatment of an important and interesting subject. The impression of a list, which has been mentioned on the article's discussion page, arises from the references and notes, which is a good fault.

The use of the term World War II still seems to me a flippant and rather derisive way of designating a serious subject but I know that others are now accustomed to it.

Subject to the following I support the nomination.

There is one gap in the article's coverage. Between 1945 and 1950, obstructions were removed from roads, bushes grew round the more out of the way works, the ironwork was removed from places like Pegwell Bay but in the late 1940s radar station towers remained and seaside piers still had gaps in them. These reflected the piers' important potential as landing places for materiel once a beachhead had been achieved.

I think that brief mention of the use of radar as defensive equipment and a link to fuller coverage of the subject would help complete this article's coverage. Similarly, the piers' significance in the question of building up support for an invading force once it had a beachhead should be covered. Those gaps were a very noticeable feature of the seaside scene so will be remembered by many. The piers, added to the list of things already mentioned by the article, draw attention to how much there was to think about in June 1940 and to how notable an achievement was the charting of a path between despair and panic.

These public realtions considerations vis à vis the British public but also in obtaining backing from potential allies and in sending messages to enemies are touched upon (in the last case more fully) but their significance is not fully drawn to readers' attention.

The article has to be long because the subject is very complex. It has been dealt with well. (RJP 20:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Done and done, although others may want to review and refine what I've added - it's a start at least. I've added references both to the disabling of british piers, and the Chain Home radar system (and radar in genreal) and the impact it had upon the battle of britain. njan 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of an impression of a list belongs to a much earlier incarnation of this article. I suspect that the "list" mentioned referred to the portion that has been split of into a separate article: British hardened field defences of World War II.

Thanks for the pier review, you are quite right to bring that up.

I am less sure of the value of mentioning the radar stations as there were really a part of Britain's air defences, although if that is the consensus view I will go along with it. Although all things relating to the Battle of Britain did, of course, have a vital bearing on the prospect of an invasion it has been the usual practice to treat the air and ground battles as quite separate - in all the books I have read I cannot think of a single exception. This wikipedia article simply continues continues that publishing tradition. In an article such as this one, knowing what to leave out is a serious problem - there is almost no limit to the sub-topics that one could make a case for including.

The issue of public and foreign relations is an interesting and complex one. I have my own opinions and could probably construct an argument to support them. However, that would not be encyclopdic. I have not found any suitable references for this topic.

Gaius Cornelius 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my 2c, my initial impression is that as something that is in no small part responsible for the Invasion Preparations never having to be used in anger, the radar system is worth at least a small mention. Contextually, it seems quite important for this reason.. obviously anything more than a summary probably deserves its own article!

While I'm here, I added some information on coastal and island defences around the Firth of Forth. Wasn't sure whether I was getting too specific or not since it's local to me, but the bridge & the dockyards were vulnerable & of strategic importance. Thoughts? njan 19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Field forces weaknesses

There's an important area mostly missing from the article about the forces the British Army would have had to defend the UK- the weak forces brought back from Dunkirk, shortages of equipment (especially artillery and tanks), weak reforming divisions etc. I inserted something about VII Corps some time ago but there's very little more. Buckshot06 07:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.