Talk:Operation Martlet

Untitled

My first fully-fledged article. Needs work, but hopefully it's an okay start... Gunner357 (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Citations which have been called Ibid, can you please change them to the correct format of name and page number.

As more citations get added to the article or citations removed/moved around the ibid ones will end up not matching up like they are suppose to and will lead to confusion.

Also, citation 2 is called Ellis - can you note weather this is John or Major Ellis please.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

-Done.Gunner357 (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

21st Panzer Division

Battlezone Normandy: Operation Epsom by Lloyd Clark p.42 mentions elements of the 21st Panzer Division being in position alongside the troops from the Hitleryouth division when the attack went in however there is no mention of the 21st within the text. Maybe an area which could be improved upon?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, checked with Meyer's history. Wasn't sure it was correct at first as it took me some time to find it. They were attached to Pz Lehr Division on the right flank of 49th Div, not heavily engaged, but mentioned irrespective. Further work needed, either from primary sources or Feuchtinger's divisional history of the 21st (which I don't have, sorry). Gunner357 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Attached to the Panzer Lehr ... that would explain why i couldnt find the 21st on any of the maps of the battle area! :) --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

info

"... Operation Martlet, an attack in support of Epsom, created a three-kilometre deep penetration in the seam between 12SS and Panzer Lehr.

Martlet was designed to accomplish two purposes, distraction and attrition. The division carried it out with considerable skill. ..."

Terry Copp, 'The 21st Army Group in Normandy: towards a new balance sheet', p. 18, quoted in 'The Normandy campaign 1944: sixty years on', Buckley (editor)

CE

Tidied page added citations to paragraph endings, added headers and footer.Keith-264 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Style

• "It was its first operation of the campaign as a division." I assume elements of the division had engaged in ops prior to this, but the phrasing is not clear.
• "During Epsom, VIII Corps would be endangered . . . " First mention outside the lead, would prefer Operation Epsom for clarity
• "A thick ground mist had developed, severely hindering the visibility of the advancing troops and the battalions lost direction" "Visibility" is ambiguous. The ending indicates it was the British who had problems seeing, but it might just as well be taken as indicating the mist cloaked them from German observation.
• There seems to be some unnecessary redirecting. Leaving off the Hitlerjugend and Hohenstaufen from the SS divisions may be a matter of taste, but why Panzer-Lehr instead of Panzer Lehr Division? Also, in the second mention of this unit the division name is italicized, but no other units are.
• I believe the convention on links is that they are linked in the lead, then again the first time used in the narrative. There are a couple that are only linked in the lead. Vendes and Tessel are not linked either place. Bretteville seems to be entirely too popular as a place name in Normandy, so I can't tell which one. Same for Juvigny, although only one appears to use the name without further explanation.
• Since Wikipedia is for a general audience, unit names should be more clearly stated, at least in the first mention. II/192nd Panzer-Grenadier Regiment should note this is the second battalion of the regiment. Possibly even explain that this is an armored infantry unit. It's also inconsistent with the prelude reference to the 3rd Battalion, 26th SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment. Similar for British formations.
• "and 146th Brigade captured Tessel-Bretteville wood" "and the 146th . . ." Unit usage elsewhere included the article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not my prose, I added the citations.Keith-264 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually some of the prose was mine so I've decided to sort it out.Keith-264 (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Italics

I'm going to do some de-italicizing of German unit names. Don't know if it's technically correct, but it seems customary (wiki and elsewhere) to italicize only the blatantly Germanic parts of unit names (like, say, 'Hitlerjugend'). A name like '21st Panzer Division' seems semi-Anglicized enough that italics look a little out of place. Good article overall.Tomseattle (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was trying various usages when I did this and I still can't make my mind up. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If you take off the italics marks, you'll still need to pipe the link or it'll turn red.Keith-264 (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that it's written in English English so it's reconnoitre not reconnoiter etc. I thought you'd finished so I've been taking the mad commas back out.Keith-264 (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Articles looking good - tho' I just realized that the intro doesn't mention the Second World War or the nation of France, which it probably should. Some unit names are a little iffy on the matter of italicization - Panzer Grenadier? Panzergrenadier? I've been going with the usage used in other wikis, but of course that varies a bit, too. What about switching times to mil time? (Seems to be standard in wikipedia.) Generally trying to respect the "armoured centres". Yes, too many commas, I tend to do that, trying to rein it in.Tomseattle (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not the 24-hour clock please, we're civilians. The German terms are difficult because some are familiar to English-speakers and some not but since you've taken the trouble, I've followed your precedent. I didn't notice that the war and place weren't in the lead though.... ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)