![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added table on gas warfare, then shifted things about to fit, then decided to harmonise the layout with other pages and shift parts of the main page, which are in too much detail there to here. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The page has been rewritten and could do with a fresh pair of eyes to copy edit it before submission for a B class review. Keith-264 ( talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Split the section as dividing the paragraphs made the section unwieldy. Keith-264 ( talk) 06:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Michael Glass: Pls explain why you think the wording could minimise British losses. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The loss of about 60,000 British casualties on 1 July, was not repeated but in the fighting from 2–13 July the British lost another 25,000 men. This was a change in the rate of loss from about 60,000 to 2,083 per day; German casualties from 1–10 July were 40,187. (compared with British casualties of about 85,000 from 1-13 July.)
"But" is argumentative and conclusive not descriptive so needs a citation to a RS. Reason for comparison needs explaining and citing for relevance to this section of the article. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
My problem the wording I found was that splitting the casualties of the first day from the casualties on subsequent days diverts the readers' attention from the total number of deaths. British deaths were far in excess of the French losses and about double the losses of the Germans. Of course it is important to note that the horrific losses of the first day were not repeated in subsequent days, but the total number of casualties was still disproportionately high and this is important to note. Michael Glass ( talk) 03:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the wording I find problematic is the phrase, was not repeated in The loss of about 60,000 British casualties on 1 July, was not repeated In fact, the losses were cumulative. 60,000 were lost on 1 July and a further 25,000 were lost from 2-13 July. That was not repeated phrase does tend to minimise the loss of 25,000 men in 12 days. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The references to thousands of yards (and metres) are not helpful to the average reader. I have converted the metres to kilometres (and a few kg to tonnes). Michael Glass ( talk) 05:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@ The Rambling Man: Good morning, just spotted your edits; is there a WP you can point me at pls? I have no idea about designing tables and adapted these from an article by trial and error. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
See also
make room for the portal rather than overrunning the next header? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
First it is said :Barleux and Biaches were captured on 4 July, by Foreign Legion troops of the Moroccan Division. But shortly afterwards: A preliminary attack on Barleux and Biaches was postponed from 8 to 9 July, [..] and failed to capture Barleux, though the French broke through the German second position to capture Biaches. When Barleux and Biaches were already captured on 4 July how could the French failed capture Barleux on 9 July ???? Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 17:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 1, 2014 and July 1, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Added table on gas warfare, then shifted things about to fit, then decided to harmonise the layout with other pages and shift parts of the main page, which are in too much detail there to here. Keith-264 ( talk) 10:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The page has been rewritten and could do with a fresh pair of eyes to copy edit it before submission for a B class review. Keith-264 ( talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Split the section as dividing the paragraphs made the section unwieldy. Keith-264 ( talk) 06:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Michael Glass: Pls explain why you think the wording could minimise British losses. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
The loss of about 60,000 British casualties on 1 July, was not repeated but in the fighting from 2–13 July the British lost another 25,000 men. This was a change in the rate of loss from about 60,000 to 2,083 per day; German casualties from 1–10 July were 40,187. (compared with British casualties of about 85,000 from 1-13 July.)
"But" is argumentative and conclusive not descriptive so needs a citation to a RS. Reason for comparison needs explaining and citing for relevance to this section of the article. Keith-264 ( talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
My problem the wording I found was that splitting the casualties of the first day from the casualties on subsequent days diverts the readers' attention from the total number of deaths. British deaths were far in excess of the French losses and about double the losses of the Germans. Of course it is important to note that the horrific losses of the first day were not repeated in subsequent days, but the total number of casualties was still disproportionately high and this is important to note. Michael Glass ( talk) 03:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the wording I find problematic is the phrase, was not repeated in The loss of about 60,000 British casualties on 1 July, was not repeated In fact, the losses were cumulative. 60,000 were lost on 1 July and a further 25,000 were lost from 2-13 July. That was not repeated phrase does tend to minimise the loss of 25,000 men in 12 days. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The references to thousands of yards (and metres) are not helpful to the average reader. I have converted the metres to kilometres (and a few kg to tonnes). Michael Glass ( talk) 05:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@ The Rambling Man: Good morning, just spotted your edits; is there a WP you can point me at pls? I have no idea about designing tables and adapted these from an article by trial and error. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 08:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
See also
make room for the portal rather than overrunning the next header? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
First it is said :Barleux and Biaches were captured on 4 July, by Foreign Legion troops of the Moroccan Division. But shortly afterwards: A preliminary attack on Barleux and Biaches was postponed from 8 to 9 July, [..] and failed to capture Barleux, though the French broke through the German second position to capture Biaches. When Barleux and Biaches were already captured on 4 July how could the French failed capture Barleux on 9 July ???? Mr.Lovecraft ( talk) 17:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)