WIKIPEDIA:WIKIPROJECT MILITARY HISTORY ASSESSMENT AMERICAN LOGISTICS IN THE NORMANDY CAMPAIGN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Gog the Mild ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 21:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list reply

American logistics in the Normandy campaign

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 ( talk)

Featured article candidates/American logistics in the Normandy campaign/archive1

This is a companion to my article on British logistics in the Normandy campaign, which was written back in 2017. The US effort is far more controversial. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Image review—pass

File:Red Ball 1944 september 20-fr.svg needs sources for information presented (I am not sure about RS and the second link is dead).
The image is part of a series created by Wikipedians. The source is Ruppenthal, Logistic Support of the Armies, Volume II, Map 5, p. 136 [1], along with the accompanying text, which notes the changes to the Red Ball route over time. I have added an archive link [2] to the other map (which comes from here). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply
File:Red_Ball_Express_Regulating_Point.jpg Can you confirm that this is a US military image? Source link is bare image, so it doesn't say so.
The image is from Ulysses Lee's seminal work, The Employment of Negro Troops, p. 632 [3], which is also part of the Green books series. The book notes that the image was taken from the US Army files. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Other images look OK to me in terms of copyright, relevance and other criteria. b uidh e 20:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Other comments

Some of the sections are very long. It would be helpful for readability to break up or subdivide some of the longer ones, such as Bolero, Shipping, Mulberry harbor, Base organization, POL, Railways, Motor transport, Ports. These are all well over a page on my computer with small font and are likely to occupy several screens for readers who use larger text or smaller screens. b uidh e 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not saying no, but am uncertain as to how this will improve readability. MOS:BODY says Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose but gives no guidance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Layout#"Very_long"_sections. b uidh e 06:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Support by Nick-D

Great topic! I have the following comments:

" This left the Third US Army with only 60 percent of its wheeled vehicles" - when was this as of?
By the end of June. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Can more be said about the supply of the two airborne divisions in the 'Assault' section? - this appears rather late in the article, and could be usefully moved forward.
Moved forward to the buildup section, and added a bit more about the resupply of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC) reply
"Discharge at night under lights began on 12 June despite the obvious risk of German air attack. " - this might over-state the risk given Allied air superiority over Normandy: a key reason for the success of the Allied landings at Normandy is that the Germans could only occasionally harass their rear areas while the Allies greatly disrupted the German supply lines. The Australian night fighter squadron which operated over Normandy in June found few targets, for instance.
Very true. Only one ship was lost to air attack ( HMS Boadicea). Deleted "obvious". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC) reply
"only 25 days of good weather could be expected in June" - this seems pretty good actually.
Good point. Deleted "only". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC) reply
"as was interference by the Luftwaffe once it was beyond the range of fighter cover." - given that the Allies were always able to move fighter aircraft to cover the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards, and were able to maintain substantial air units in France from early in the Normandy campaign, this seems questionable.
The the advances of ground forces from 1942 onwards was predicated on the availability of air cover. There was no attempt to operate beyond it. But here, we are talking about deliberately doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Nick-D ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D ( talk) 06:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Support: G'day, Hawkeye, nice work, as always. I had a look at this earlier in the year and believe it meets the A-class criteria. I have a few minor suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert ( talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I see some examples of British English (probably from templates -- metres for instance, but also "despatched", "minimise", "reconnaissance", )
Y Fiddled with the templates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
and by May 1944 fifteen US port battalions were working the UK ports --> missing full stop
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
but it died hard in the UK -- this seems a bit like editorialising
Y Sounds like something Bruce Willis would do. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
everyone from Eisenhower down felt short changed -- this seems a bit like editorialising
I'm not sure how to express this differently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
No worries, not a major concern. I'd suggest maybe: "and when confronted with evidence to the contrary, there was widespread disappointment". Would that work? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Y Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
and a shortage of it proved impossible to reserve the routes: I wasn't really sure about the wording here
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
with mines that the German had apparently --> "with mines that the Germans had apparently" or "with mines that the German troops had apparently"
Y Deleted "that". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
A great victory had been won...: I'd suggest attributing this contention in text
Changed to "the Battle of Normandy". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
rapidly changing operational situation. [175] --> remove space between citation and punctuation
Y Found a few instances and removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
in the References: "Center Of Military History" --> "Center of Military History"?
Y De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"Little, Brown and Cimoany" --> " Little, Brown and Company"?
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
OCLCs for the Balmer, Blumenson, Crist, Mayo works?
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
suggest adding an endash to the title of the source by C.J. Dick
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
ISSN or similar for the Infantry Journal?
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Washington, D.C. v. Washington, DC (compare Hogan with Ruppenthal)
Y Settled on DC per MOS:POSTABBR Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"File:Omaha Mulberry Harbour.jpg": the image description page appears to be missing some information; also, the source link doesn't point to the image, suggest adjusting the link or provide a catalogue number to allow searching
Y Corrected on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Nice work. Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

CommentsSupport by PM

Another nice piece on WWII logistics, Hawkeye. Some comments from me:

Lead

link Communications Zone
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
suggest "but the American Mulberry at Omaha"
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link mortar (weapon)
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
probably no need for (BARs) in the lead as not used again in the lead, just use in the body?
It's another of those abbreviations that is better known than what it stands for. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Brittany
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Body

comma after "General George C. Marshall"
Y added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
suggest "Harry L. Hopkins, the principal foreign policy advisor to the president"
Y Uh okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC). reply
suggest "Major General John C. H. Lee, who had previously commanded the Pacific Ports of Embarkation in the US."
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Northern Island Base Section→Northern Ireland Base Section
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link measurement ton
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Division (military)
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
move NATOUSA in full from second to first mention
Y Damn. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Marking three round-trip voyages
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
troops arrivals
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
in the first five months of 1944
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
say that the Third Army was the US follow-up force
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
say that 21st Army Group was the principal landing force for D-Day and that First United States Army Group was a deception formation
Y Looks like I didn't introduce the operational formations very well. Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
introduce FUSAG when first mentioning First United States Army Group
Y Introduced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Communications Zone
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Advance Section (ADSEC) is odd, normally we would link the term, not the acronym
It's what the article is called. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
True, but the target article is completely uncited, as of course is the claim it is commonly referred to as ADSEC. The article title is deficient in a number of ways. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Y Well, the two of know it is in fact correct. Changed to link "Advance Section" to "ADSEC". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
I suppose I could add it to my work list. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Brittany

Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Base Section No. 2, under the command of ~~Brigadier General Leroy P.~~ Collins, was activated
Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Down to Assault, more to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC) reply

for glider-borne link Military glider

Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
insert links into "quartermaster, ordnance, medical, military police, signals and chemical warfare"
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link James Edward Wharton
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
11th Port what? regiment? brigade?could you reword
It's the name of the unit; the 11th Port. [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Armored bulldozer and suggest bulldozer rather than colloquial "dozer"
These are not the same thing. An armoured bulldozer is a bulldozer with armoured protection. A tank dozer is a tank with a bulldozer blade on the front.


Armoured bulldozer	Tank dozer

Yes, I am aware, but "dozer" is still colloquial, suggest "tank bulldozers" you could also link to M4 Sherman variants#US Special Attachment variants as these sixteen were Shermans in any case. They were joined later in the day by actual armoured bulldozers anyway. See [5] Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
You realise that your source calls them "tankdozers" and the link calls them "dozers"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
could you reword "The demonstration of the Army's prodigality inculcated a culture of wastefulness that had undesirable longer term consequences."? Seems unnecessarily wordy.
Y dropped "long term". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Do you mean "profligacy" rather than "prodigality"? the former being more severe and the latter being a rather obscure usage. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 06:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"prodigality" is better, because it also has the connotation of "lavish" whereas "proflifate" means wasteful and dissolute. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Down to Build-up. More to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply

pontons→ pontoons, this is an archaic spelling less recognisable than pontoon, there are more examples
ponton is the official US military spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
personally returned to the UK
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
suggest being consistent with use of FUSA for First Army after it is introduced
Y Switch to consistently use "First Army". It seems that the abbreviation fell out of use when Third Army was activated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"On its first day of operation, a vehicle unloaded over the pier every 1.16 minutes." do you mean loaded?
Y Changed to "was unloaded". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link blockship
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Allied Expeditionary Air Force
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Some supplies and equipment such as 105 mm howitzers
Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
link field hospital
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Ccross-Channel
Y De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
eliminate ~~the man with~~men carrying the Browning automatic rifle (BAR)
Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
emergency action. the First Army
Y Capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
when first mentioning the M1 mortar, say it was 81 mm, as you later refer to 81 mm ammunition
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link New York Port of Embarkation
Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
can you briefly explain what the Minor System pipeline was?
Added a bit. It's in the map too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link avgas
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Down to Breakout and pursuit. More to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

explain that Operation Cobra was the breakout from Normandy when first introduced
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
For some reason, Bradley fixated on Brest? Did he explain his decisions or thinking in A Soldier's Story?
Y He simply says that he gave Brest had priority over Lorient. Deleted "for some reason". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
VIII Corps commander Lieutenant General Troy H. Middleton
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
the commander iof the 4th Major Port
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Ten days later it was redesignated ~~that~~as Cherbourg Command
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Base Collins's Section No. 1→Collins' No. 2 Base Section
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
move the link to Laval, Mayenne to first mention
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
what were the implications of "although ADSEC had opened a MT80 supply point at Fontainebleau"?
Y Deleted this since POL is discussed in the next section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
what is the import of (282,000 US gallons (1,070,000 l) on 24 August alone) when that is less than the First Army daily rate of 501,000 US gallons?
Y I think I was trying to correct the misconception that Third Army was the bigger user of POL. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
were there any gauge issues with using the French railways?
No, the French system was a standard-gauge railway. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Pontaubault
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
found using a series of secondary lines?
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
18:00 on 15 August and 20:00 and 19:00, per MOS:TIME
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
was in Allied hands, ~~and~~ reconstruction of that line was given a high priority, and it
Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Dreux
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Down to Motor transport. More to come. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply

suggest "~~The theater~~ETO was only partly responsible for this."
Y Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
move Transportation Corps link to first mention
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
suggest standardising with Chartres-Dreux or Dreux-Chartres
Y Standardised on Dreux-Chartes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
or building new ones
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Consolidated B-24 Liberator
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link Cherbourg Maritime station
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
coal coasters?
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link line of communications
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
link sluice gate
Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Luftwaffe is now in Merriam-Webster, so needn't be italicised
Y De-italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

That's me done, but I'm left wondering if there is a heavy reliance on older sources, esp Ruppenthal. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Ruppenthal is awesome! It's a shame that the corresponding volume on the Pacific theatre never got written. I have an extensive library of books on logistics here and I can tell you that it is not a popular subject. I'm still anxiously awaiting the release of the volume on logistics in the Vietnam series. The last book-length treatment of the US forces in Normandy was Waddell. That was 25 years ago but somehow the distance between 1995 and 2020 doesn't seem as great as that between 1945 and 1970. I was very impressed with Dick's chapter on logistics - enough to buy a copy of the book, but he gives an overview. I will have a look at some theses. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

No doubt. Not an issue at ACR, but I think you'll need to be able to show that you've looked at a wider range of sources (and some more recent ones) at FAC. I still think ponton and prodigality are pretty obscure (and we should be writing in plain English for readers), but that is a minor matter. Support for this excellent effort. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Some of the recent works which have re-evaluated popular views of the US Army in World War II (like this one) might have useful material on this topic - there have been a few works in recent years arguing that the US Army was more effective than previously commonly believed due to its 'enablers' and good leadership. Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Source review – pass

In progress... Harrias ^talk 08:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Formatting and consistency

"Balmer, J. D.; Compton, L. J.; Daley, J. P.; Williams, U. P. (1945)" needs some publisher details.
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"Beck, Alfred M.; Bortz, Abe; Lynch, Charles W.; Mayo, Lida; Weld, Ralph F. (1985)" has a typo: "United States Amy"
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Same for the next, "Blumenson, Martin (1961)". Also, why does this list the publisher as "Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army", rather than "Center of Military History" like the previous instance? Looking at the sources themselves, they both use "Center of Military History"? Check this for all the "United States Army in World War II" sources.
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"Bykofsky, Joseph; Larson, Harold (1957)" doesn't list a URL, but I assume it is this?
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"Hogan, David W., Jr. (2000)" similar question; lists "Center of Military History" in the source material? Am I missing something here?
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"Melia, Tamara Moser (1991)" needs an endash in the year range for the title.
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Could you note that the "Osmanski, F. A." sources are all PDFs.
Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Generally, you use "City, State" for the location. I'm happy with Toronto and Boston being exceptions to this, but in "Rawson, Andrew (2012)", I would expect some more information for "Stroud".
Y Added "Gloucestershire" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
"Thomson, Harry C.; Mayo, Lida (1960)." doesn't list a URL, but I assume it is this?
Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Typo in the location for "Waddell, Steve R. (1994)": "Wesport, Connecticut".
Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Quality and coverage

All sources appear to be high-quality reliable sources.
As Peacemaker67 notes, looking towards a future FAC, it would be worth sampling some more modern sources; I don't know if this provides much?
It's mostly about the British. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Spot checking

Spotchecks reveal no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing, and in each instance the article accurately represented the source material. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
All my concerns have been resolved. Harrias ^talk 14:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.