Second nomination. I previously nominated it back in April, but it attracted no reviews, and I asked for it to be closed to make way for another article. I hope things will go better this time. This article is about American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign. This campaign was part of the campaign that is officially called "Rhineland" and went from September to December 1945. In the first decades after the war, the strategy, operations and logistics of the campaign were controversial, and many of the issues covered by the article still exercise amateur armchair historians today: why was ammunition in short supply? Was the Sherman tank the better available? Why were there so many cases of trench foot and frostbite? Why did these crises occur when the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the world?
Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
develop a maintenance area in the vicinity of Rennes, Vitré, Laval, Segré and Châteaubriant - is this just one maintenance area in vicinity of all those places or one in each?
One large, sprawling maintenance area.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
but Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris - why?
He wanted to use it as a rest area for combat troops. Added a bit more about this.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
around Antwerp, but the - add in Belgium seeing diff country now
Source doesn't say, but I'm fairly certain that (1) the area had been allocated to the British and they already had plans for its use (2) intermingling of base units would create problems of transportation and coordination.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This prompted in a halt to shipments to - "in" intentional?
Base Sections - any link? There's
this but it's iffy?
That's World War I.
ADSEC has its own article, but none of the others do. I doubt if I would create articles on the individual base sections, but I might create one on the Communications Zone some day.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
and yellow for smoke on gray - yellow on gray for smoke
Re-phrased to clarify this. Olive shells means handle with care; gray means do not handle at all. Especially not the ones with the green bands.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
cars could be cleaned, cooled and inspected by the Veterinary Corps. - insert 'then' before "inspected" to avoid ambiguity ie the inspector didn't do the cleaning
Gog, Blip? Moi? Nah, I wasn't sure if Hawkeye missed this or simply ignored it (which I've often invited him to do if any comment not worthy of action:)
JennyOz (
talk) 13:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
That's it. Learnt a lot, so thanks.
JennyOz (
talk) 10:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Once again, thank you for taking the time to review. I keep telling people that logistics is not rocket science but the devil is in the details.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
JennyOz, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 12:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi again Gog, I've been watching changes, waiting for image review mostly. I have a few tiny things that are new since my first comments for
Hawkeye7,
In preparation for operations in northwest Europe - N
Originally there was an article "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" but I split it in two to avoid concerns about the article being too large. Several editors have opined that the readers would be better-served by one really large article than two fairly large ones, as readers interested in the subject will read the whole thing anyway, but ones looking for certain information will zap to the section they are interested in, and splitting may make it harder to find.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The US Army demonstrated its ability to learn from its own experiences and to adapt to changing circumstances.[121] Many of the problems encountered during the Siegfried Line campaign in October and November could have been anticipated, and time was lost as increasingly higher echelons responded and developed solutions.[120] These two claims appear to fall under
WP:RSOPINION and thus should be attributed in-text accordingly, particularly in the second sentence. "Could have been anticipated" is always going to be a somewhat subjective claim.
Ref 18 - (Moses et al. 1945, pp. 33–38.) Appears to support both claims/paragraphs. I do note, you wrote Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris while source literally ascribes that decision to his office,
Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (p. 36). I imagine you know more about how these official reports like to word things so I'll defer to you on whether it is best to say "Eisenhower" or "the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force". For citation clarity, I would also recommend breaking up the citations with expansive page ranges (33-38) to smaller page ranges attached directly to the sentences in these paragraphs which they support, if workable.
Changed to SHAEF. Added a bit about Eisenhower.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Ref 56 - (MacDonald 1963, pp. 411–412.) Both claims supported.
Ref 81 - (Gropman 1996, pp. 134–135) Good.
Ref 82 - (Gropman 1996, p. 95.) Good for the claim Munitions production peaked in the last quarter of 1943,, but it would be preferable if this was a point made explicitly in source text, rather than by looking at a line on a chart, due to
WP:SYNTH concerns.
I think we're good here. Most of the sources are official publications, including some declassified assessments. Others are published by reputable publishers. -
Indy beetle (
talk) 04:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support by CPA
For now I'll keep it small but might do a full review in the future.
I see litres and tonnes I think it might be a good idea to re-read the article and remove the British English spots here and there. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 21:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not those tonnes, I mean the tonnes in the Solid fuels section those tonnes should be switched with long tons. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 10:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The deadweight tonnes have been changed to deadweight metric tons through an addition to the {{convert}} template.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:DATETIES all the dates should be MM/DD/YYYY instead of DD/MM/YYYY.
MOS:DATETIES: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"German forces beyond the Seine" Add here River.
WP:NCRIVER says to follow the common usage, which here is to omit "river".
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"Class II and IV depots in Seine and Oise Base Sections" Add here departments.
"have the breast cargo pockets.[30])" I think it looks nicer if the citation is put after the round bracket.
Hi CPA, I think this is a case of "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." per MOS:PUNCTREF
JennyOz (
talk) 14:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"and August 1944 55,000 long tons (56,000 t)" Per
MOS:NUMNOTES avoid akward juxtapositions.
"air and sea in January, 29,743 in February" Can you rephrase this sentence? I got confused when I first read this I thought you meant January 29 and 743 in February.
That's why we don't use MDY dates. Re-phrased.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"The main weapon of the divisions was the 105 mm howitzer" Compound adjective here and convert the unit?
Conversion isn't meaningful for ammunition calibers. No hyphenation as a proper name, per their articles.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"It was a similar story with the 155 mm howitzers" Same as above?
"plentiful in lieu of field artillery.[76][71]" Re-order the refs here.
"compatible with the 75mm gun M2–M6" Compound adjective here.
"production of 8 inch gun, 8 inch howitzer, 155 mm gun, 155 mm howitzer and 4.5 inch gun ammunition" This looks like compound adjectives here?
"from the 155 mm gun and 155 mm howitzer, through to the 8 inch howitzer, 8 inch gun and 240 mm howitzer" Compound adjectives here and convert the units?
"the 75 mm gun, although the NYPE gave priority to shipping the 76 mm gun version" Compound adjectives here.
"became available for the 76 mm gun, but less than two rounds per gun per month were received before March 1945. Shermans armed with the 105 mm howitzer" Same as above.
"likely to be transferred to the South Pacific" Link South Pacific.
Just my twopenn'orth, but this seems to be getting into
MOS:OVERLINK territory to me.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 12:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"1,000,000 discarded or abandoned jerricans" --> "1 milion discarded or abandoned jerricans"?
That's anything from me. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Looks good to me, support. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 13:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comments by Wehwalt
I've made some hands-on edits where there did not seem to be doubt about what was meant. They should be reviewed though.
"The advance came to a halt in September.[10] This was not a result of inadequate supplies or port capacity—there were still some 600,000 long tons (610,000 t) of supplies stockpiled in the Normandy lodgment area two months later" If I read this correctly, this gives a figure for November to explain why there weren't problems in September?
"the medical annex of the Overlord plan did not mention cold injury,[37] and the medical manual issued shortly after D-Day gave them only a brief mention," Should them be it?
"Backlogs remained even after the opening of the port of Antwerp in November and were not cleared until February 1945.[40] Between June and August 55,000 long tons (56,000 t) of cross-Channel cargo tonnage had been allocated to clothing and personal equipment, but only 53 percent of that had been shipped. Some 62,000 long tons (63,000 t) remained in the UK, but its priority was so low that it could not be shipped before October.[41]" I'd toss a 1944 somewhere in the second sentence.
Thanks for this. Your reviews both here and on the astronaut articles are greatly appreciated.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Will resume with "Medical".--
Wehwalt (
talk) 16:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"and the Third Army had to call off the Battle of Metz owing to ammunition shortages." This isn't mentioned in the article
Battle of Metz.
It is alluded to. "Direct assault was forbidden against the holdout forts in order to preserve artillery ammunition". That article is poor though, especially considering that Metz was one of the United States most significant battles of the war. It seems that World War II is of little interest to Americans.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure the discussion of the credit system makes it clear how this worked in practice, and how this discouraged building up reserves and the other matters complained of.
"ETOUSA asked for a loan of 75 tanks designated for the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, (MTOUSA), but that had been unloaded in Marseille, on the understanding that they would be replaced from the tanks being shipped in January." Should the first use of "that" be "those"?
"105 mm howitzer" linked, I think, only on the fourth usage. You might want to go through similar usages.
Great article! I made some small copyedits,
here is the cumulative diff if you want to inspect. Mostly small typos and smoothing out the language. One query (so far): when the
Arado Ar 234 attack on Liege took place, you have: "...and started fires that resulted in the loss of 900,000 US gallons (3,400,000 l)." This isn't present in the Smithsonian reference, and none of my sources mention it, e.g. Price, Alfred (1991). The Last Year of the Luftwaffe. Arms and Armour. pp. 114–115.
ISBN1854091891.. My understanding was that this historic jet bomber raid was aimed at the city's rail station and achieved little, in line with the Ar 234's somewhat disappointing war record. Can this be sourced?
John (
talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Ruppenthal says: "The Advance Section lost about 900,000 gallons of gasoline as the result of fires started by German planes on two successive nights". I'll dig into it a bit more.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for digging in and for
fixing the article. That makes more sense now. I support. Good work.
John (
talk) 22:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support from Ian
Recusing coord duties, I came by to perform an image review but decided I wanted to learn something so read and lightly copyedited the whole article -- very well done. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Sure -- organisation, comprehensiveness and supporting materials look fine as well as the prose, and I'm taking as read the source review above. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Image review -- one certainly can't complain about the comprehensiveness of the imagery, and licensing appears appropriate. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Second nomination. I previously nominated it back in April, but it attracted no reviews, and I asked for it to be closed to make way for another article. I hope things will go better this time. This article is about American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign. This campaign was part of the campaign that is officially called "Rhineland" and went from September to December 1945. In the first decades after the war, the strategy, operations and logistics of the campaign were controversial, and many of the issues covered by the article still exercise amateur armchair historians today: why was ammunition in short supply? Was the Sherman tank the better available? Why were there so many cases of trench foot and frostbite? Why did these crises occur when the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the world?
Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
develop a maintenance area in the vicinity of Rennes, Vitré, Laval, Segré and Châteaubriant - is this just one maintenance area in vicinity of all those places or one in each?
One large, sprawling maintenance area.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
but Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris - why?
He wanted to use it as a rest area for combat troops. Added a bit more about this.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
around Antwerp, but the - add in Belgium seeing diff country now
Source doesn't say, but I'm fairly certain that (1) the area had been allocated to the British and they already had plans for its use (2) intermingling of base units would create problems of transportation and coordination.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This prompted in a halt to shipments to - "in" intentional?
Base Sections - any link? There's
this but it's iffy?
That's World War I.
ADSEC has its own article, but none of the others do. I doubt if I would create articles on the individual base sections, but I might create one on the Communications Zone some day.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
and yellow for smoke on gray - yellow on gray for smoke
Re-phrased to clarify this. Olive shells means handle with care; gray means do not handle at all. Especially not the ones with the green bands.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
cars could be cleaned, cooled and inspected by the Veterinary Corps. - insert 'then' before "inspected" to avoid ambiguity ie the inspector didn't do the cleaning
Gog, Blip? Moi? Nah, I wasn't sure if Hawkeye missed this or simply ignored it (which I've often invited him to do if any comment not worthy of action:)
JennyOz (
talk) 13:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
That's it. Learnt a lot, so thanks.
JennyOz (
talk) 10:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Once again, thank you for taking the time to review. I keep telling people that logistics is not rocket science but the devil is in the details.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
JennyOz, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 12:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi again Gog, I've been watching changes, waiting for image review mostly. I have a few tiny things that are new since my first comments for
Hawkeye7,
In preparation for operations in northwest Europe - N
Originally there was an article "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" but I split it in two to avoid concerns about the article being too large. Several editors have opined that the readers would be better-served by one really large article than two fairly large ones, as readers interested in the subject will read the whole thing anyway, but ones looking for certain information will zap to the section they are interested in, and splitting may make it harder to find.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The US Army demonstrated its ability to learn from its own experiences and to adapt to changing circumstances.[121] Many of the problems encountered during the Siegfried Line campaign in October and November could have been anticipated, and time was lost as increasingly higher echelons responded and developed solutions.[120] These two claims appear to fall under
WP:RSOPINION and thus should be attributed in-text accordingly, particularly in the second sentence. "Could have been anticipated" is always going to be a somewhat subjective claim.
Ref 18 - (Moses et al. 1945, pp. 33–38.) Appears to support both claims/paragraphs. I do note, you wrote Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris while source literally ascribes that decision to his office,
Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (p. 36). I imagine you know more about how these official reports like to word things so I'll defer to you on whether it is best to say "Eisenhower" or "the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force". For citation clarity, I would also recommend breaking up the citations with expansive page ranges (33-38) to smaller page ranges attached directly to the sentences in these paragraphs which they support, if workable.
Changed to SHAEF. Added a bit about Eisenhower.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Ref 56 - (MacDonald 1963, pp. 411–412.) Both claims supported.
Ref 81 - (Gropman 1996, pp. 134–135) Good.
Ref 82 - (Gropman 1996, p. 95.) Good for the claim Munitions production peaked in the last quarter of 1943,, but it would be preferable if this was a point made explicitly in source text, rather than by looking at a line on a chart, due to
WP:SYNTH concerns.
I think we're good here. Most of the sources are official publications, including some declassified assessments. Others are published by reputable publishers. -
Indy beetle (
talk) 04:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support by CPA
For now I'll keep it small but might do a full review in the future.
I see litres and tonnes I think it might be a good idea to re-read the article and remove the British English spots here and there. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 21:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not those tonnes, I mean the tonnes in the Solid fuels section those tonnes should be switched with long tons. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 10:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The deadweight tonnes have been changed to deadweight metric tons through an addition to the {{convert}} template.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Per
MOS:DATETIES all the dates should be MM/DD/YYYY instead of DD/MM/YYYY.
MOS:DATETIES: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"German forces beyond the Seine" Add here River.
WP:NCRIVER says to follow the common usage, which here is to omit "river".
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"Class II and IV depots in Seine and Oise Base Sections" Add here departments.
"have the breast cargo pockets.[30])" I think it looks nicer if the citation is put after the round bracket.
Hi CPA, I think this is a case of "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." per MOS:PUNCTREF
JennyOz (
talk) 14:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"and August 1944 55,000 long tons (56,000 t)" Per
MOS:NUMNOTES avoid akward juxtapositions.
"air and sea in January, 29,743 in February" Can you rephrase this sentence? I got confused when I first read this I thought you meant January 29 and 743 in February.
That's why we don't use MDY dates. Re-phrased.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"The main weapon of the divisions was the 105 mm howitzer" Compound adjective here and convert the unit?
Conversion isn't meaningful for ammunition calibers. No hyphenation as a proper name, per their articles.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"It was a similar story with the 155 mm howitzers" Same as above?
"plentiful in lieu of field artillery.[76][71]" Re-order the refs here.
"compatible with the 75mm gun M2–M6" Compound adjective here.
"production of 8 inch gun, 8 inch howitzer, 155 mm gun, 155 mm howitzer and 4.5 inch gun ammunition" This looks like compound adjectives here?
"from the 155 mm gun and 155 mm howitzer, through to the 8 inch howitzer, 8 inch gun and 240 mm howitzer" Compound adjectives here and convert the units?
"the 75 mm gun, although the NYPE gave priority to shipping the 76 mm gun version" Compound adjectives here.
"became available for the 76 mm gun, but less than two rounds per gun per month were received before March 1945. Shermans armed with the 105 mm howitzer" Same as above.
"likely to be transferred to the South Pacific" Link South Pacific.
Just my twopenn'orth, but this seems to be getting into
MOS:OVERLINK territory to me.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 12:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"1,000,000 discarded or abandoned jerricans" --> "1 milion discarded or abandoned jerricans"?
That's anything from me. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Looks good to me, support. Cheers.
CPA-5 (
talk) 13:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comments by Wehwalt
I've made some hands-on edits where there did not seem to be doubt about what was meant. They should be reviewed though.
"The advance came to a halt in September.[10] This was not a result of inadequate supplies or port capacity—there were still some 600,000 long tons (610,000 t) of supplies stockpiled in the Normandy lodgment area two months later" If I read this correctly, this gives a figure for November to explain why there weren't problems in September?
"the medical annex of the Overlord plan did not mention cold injury,[37] and the medical manual issued shortly after D-Day gave them only a brief mention," Should them be it?
"Backlogs remained even after the opening of the port of Antwerp in November and were not cleared until February 1945.[40] Between June and August 55,000 long tons (56,000 t) of cross-Channel cargo tonnage had been allocated to clothing and personal equipment, but only 53 percent of that had been shipped. Some 62,000 long tons (63,000 t) remained in the UK, but its priority was so low that it could not be shipped before October.[41]" I'd toss a 1944 somewhere in the second sentence.
Thanks for this. Your reviews both here and on the astronaut articles are greatly appreciated.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Will resume with "Medical".--
Wehwalt (
talk) 16:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"and the Third Army had to call off the Battle of Metz owing to ammunition shortages." This isn't mentioned in the article
Battle of Metz.
It is alluded to. "Direct assault was forbidden against the holdout forts in order to preserve artillery ammunition". That article is poor though, especially considering that Metz was one of the United States most significant battles of the war. It seems that World War II is of little interest to Americans.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure the discussion of the credit system makes it clear how this worked in practice, and how this discouraged building up reserves and the other matters complained of.
"ETOUSA asked for a loan of 75 tanks designated for the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, (MTOUSA), but that had been unloaded in Marseille, on the understanding that they would be replaced from the tanks being shipped in January." Should the first use of "that" be "those"?
"105 mm howitzer" linked, I think, only on the fourth usage. You might want to go through similar usages.
Great article! I made some small copyedits,
here is the cumulative diff if you want to inspect. Mostly small typos and smoothing out the language. One query (so far): when the
Arado Ar 234 attack on Liege took place, you have: "...and started fires that resulted in the loss of 900,000 US gallons (3,400,000 l)." This isn't present in the Smithsonian reference, and none of my sources mention it, e.g. Price, Alfred (1991). The Last Year of the Luftwaffe. Arms and Armour. pp. 114–115.
ISBN1854091891.. My understanding was that this historic jet bomber raid was aimed at the city's rail station and achieved little, in line with the Ar 234's somewhat disappointing war record. Can this be sourced?
John (
talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Ruppenthal says: "The Advance Section lost about 900,000 gallons of gasoline as the result of fires started by German planes on two successive nights". I'll dig into it a bit more.
Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks for digging in and for
fixing the article. That makes more sense now. I support. Good work.
John (
talk) 22:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support from Ian
Recusing coord duties, I came by to perform an image review but decided I wanted to learn something so read and lightly copyedited the whole article -- very well done. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Sure -- organisation, comprehensiveness and supporting materials look fine as well as the prose, and I'm taking as read the source review above. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Image review -- one certainly can't complain about the comprehensiveness of the imagery, and licensing appears appropriate. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 17:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.