Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Juno Beach

Juno Beach

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

After a lengthy hiatus to write about Japanese battleships, I have at long last returned my attention to Operation Overlord, beginning with the Canadian Sector of the Normandy Landing Zones. This marks the single largest (and most research-intensive) article I have ever written; it passed GA several weeks ago, and I believe that it meets the A-Class Criteria, and thus I respectfully submit it for ACR. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • there are no dab links, ext links work (no action required);
  • the images lack alt text. You might consider adding it in, but it is not a requirement (suggestion only);
  • "File:Canadian Soldiers Juno Beach Town.jpg" - if possible the description, permission and author information on the image description page should probably be translated into English (currently only in French);
  • otherwise images appear correctly licenced (no action required);
  • in the lead I think that there is a tense switch. For example: "Juno Beach is the code name" (present) and "the beach is situated" (present), then "The sector spanned" (past);

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • it might be possible to reduce the amount of whitespace between the lead and the Background section by placing a table of contents limit in the article, see Template:TOC limit (suggestion only);
  • I suggest wikilinking terms like "battalion" and "brigade" on first mention (and other military unit terminology) so that casual readers can learn more;

Done somewhat. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • be careful of overlink. I found a few terms, e.g. "Benard Montgomery" and "Erwin Rommel" were linked a few times in the body, there might be others (per recent FAC advice, its probably best to limit linking to just in the lead and once in the body);
    • Its not really a major issue for me, but I removed one myself. I think if you want to take this to FAC, you will need to cast a keen eye over it for overlink. This issue has been raised a few times in recent FACs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • in The Invasion of Normandy section, I suggest adding a citation at the end of this sentence: "After delays of both logistical planning and weather, the D-Day of Overlord was scheduled for 6 June 1944. Eisenhower and Bernard Montgomery aimed to capture Caen within the first day, and liberate Paris by D+90" (as it appears uncited);

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • in "Landing: 7th Brigade" section, I suggest adding a citation at the end of this sentence: "On the far right, C Company of the Canadian Scottish Regiment landed with little opposition, and discovered that their objective — a 75mm gun emplacement — had been destroyed by naval gunfire" (as it appears uncited);

Same citation as previous (Saunders p. 98), so I just moved the citation to the end of the paragraph to clarify. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • in the "Initial attacks" section, I'm not sure that this is correctly capitalised: "while the eastern Companies of the" and also "from the Winnipeg Companies" (shouldn't it just be "companies"?);

Fixed for the whole article. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • the spacing of emdashes is inconsistent (shouldn't be spaced per WP:DASH) and sometimes you use hyphens where emdashes are required;

I think someone else has fixed this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It was still inconsistent to me, so I've tweaked it. Please review my changes and revert if you feel necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "40%" --> "40 per cent" per MOS:PERCENT;

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "as part of Operation Charnwood (8-9 July) and Operation Goodwood (18-20 July)" (the hyphens in the date ranges probably should be endashes);

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "They found the strongpoint facing them uncleared" --> "They found that the strongpoint facing them had not been cleared"?

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "The aerial bombardment of Juno's defences the night before are considered to have " --> "The aerial bombardment of Juno's defences the night before is considered to have"?

Fixed. I'm not sure how sleep-deprived I must have been when I wrote that the first time. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

• • "Zuehlke (2004)" in the Citations is in a different format to the others which aren't presented with dates;
  • further to the above, in the Bibliography you provide "Zuehlke, Mark (2005)" - should this be 2004 or 2005?

Ah. Same problem. I originally had three Zuehlke books when I started out, so I used Zuehlke (2004) intending to use the other books. I never did end up doing so. Given that I have so many Zuehlke refs and will probably be adding 2001 ones in the near future, I'm keeping them for ease of editing (hope that's ok). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You still need to include the full bibliographic details for Zuehlke 2004 in the Bibliography. Currently you only have the 2005 book. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• • in the citations "Wilmost, p. 276" - should this be "Wilmot"?

Spelling typo. My bad. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • inconsistent style, compare: "Zuehlke, pp. 242-3" v "Copp, pp. 55-56" (one uses abbreviated range, the other full range numbers);

Generally if it's double-digit page #s I tried to spell it out in full, but only use abbreviated for triple-digits. I know that's inconsistent. I've gone through to see which ones I can find. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • some of the References have publisher locations and others don't. If possible they should all have them for consistency (its not a drama, though, if you can't find them all);

The ones I could find have them. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • the page ranges in the Citations probably should have endashes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Provisional support: most of my comments have been addressed, however my review is not a full review. I support the suggestions/comments made by Fifelfoo and Nick-D, so I would like to see these addressed before the review is completed. As I will be heading out field next week, I might not be back (not sure) before the review is due to be closed. As such I offer provisional support for promotion to A-class, based on the proviso that Nick's and Fifelfoo's comments are satisfactorily addressed. Sorry for any inconvenience that my absence may cause. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sources and Citations Generally of a high scholarly standard; want to hear the lead editor has exhaustively checked journal articles, other than that fixits. This may need a close paraphrase check due to the manner in which the citations run in sequence; I would suggest a second editor checking against Saunders (2004) which is a google book (not an accusation, of course). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • Fair enough. I actually used the copy located here, since I can't stand using online books (something about reading on the screen drives me to distraction). That being said it's a fair precaution to take on your part. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Bibliography
    • Publisher locations: All or none (Compare Barris 2004 to Copp 2003)

All. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Way of displaying publisher locations (Compare Copp 2003 to D'Este 1983; Place: Publisher versus Publisher, Place)
      • It's now uniform, with location: publisher. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Authors do not receive titles (CP Stacey). Stacey 1960/1966 is also authored by the corporate author "Canada. Dept. of National Defence."

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Periods versus commas after the date element (Compare "Wilmot, Chester (1952)." to "Zuehlke, Mark (2005),"
      • Which is exactly why I don't mix the use of templates and just standard refs. It's now all periods. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Zuehlke is generally comma'd up, your bibliography style uses periods

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Scholarly journal articles? I couldn't find any, but have you exhaustively searched?
      • I couldn't find anything of significant quality. What I did find did not stand up to the books I used (and in some cases largely relied on the same sources I did), so I've stuck to published books.
    • OCLCs pass
  • Citations
    • Zuehlke (2004) in citations, no Zueklke (2004) in bibliography
    • n-dashes "–" for page ranges ie "Granatstein, pp. 13-14" ==> "Granatstein, pp. 13–14"

• Comment:

1. The question on the talk page needs addressing Elements of the the 51st Highland Division landed on the beach in the afternoon: appears all mention of the division has been removed from the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

   Only one or two of the sources that I used even mention the presence of the 51st Highland Division, and none go into any great detail concerning the division's actions on the beach on D-Day (Van Der Vat simply mentions that they were part of the overall assault organization of Juno). From what I've managed to find on the 51st in general they did not actually land on Juno until 7 June, at which point it did begin to support the 3rd CID. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 01:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments This is a pretty good article, but I think that it needs more work to reach A class:

• "while rough weather forced the first wave to be delayed by ten minutes — the first wave touched down at 07:35" - this is a bit repetitive

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• "With Churchill's "soft underbelly of Europe" proving too slow an advance to take significant pressure off the Eastern Front, Western Allied planners returned to the plans to invade Northern France, now postponed into 1944" - this isn't at all accurate; the Western Allies were committed to landing in France in 1944 before the invasion of Italy began. This wording implies that the western Allies intended the Italian Campaign to be a substitute for landing in France.

True. Fixed (I think). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• More generally, the background section seems inappropriate; there's no need to give a potted history of the events which lead to the start of the Normandy Campaign - as we've got an article for that. Rather, it should be focused on topics such as how Juno Beach was selected as a landing site and the planning process for the landing (was the Canadian 3rd Division responsible for planning this operation?). The command structure for the Allied landing force should also be explained.

I'm of the mindset that it's important to give some background into both. Someone coming to this article for the first time - and with no background whatsoever - isn't necessarily going to go to the grander article. I think I've given the information regarding the Normandy operations that is necessary to the uninformed reader. I think I've also dealt adequately with the 3rd CID stuff in both the background and "planning and preparation" sections. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bernard Montgomery is linked twice, and his position is explained on the second occasion

Delinked and switched to first time. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that Monty was "commander of group forces" - he was the commander of the 21st Army Group and commander of the landing forces. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of the statement that the German Army included "superb armoured divisions"?

changed the wording slightly. I think it's worth noting that SS Panzer divisions were not your standard armoured divisions. I'm not sure how to remove reference altogether and maintain the flow. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that changing the wording to "it remained a powerful fighting force with a strong cadre of junior officers and elite divisions." isn't an improvement - this implies that 'elite divisions' were the norm, when they most certainly were not and is still irrelevant to this article (the Canadians faced a third rate division at Juno). Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Removed the reference, though I do think that mentioning that the German Army was still a strong force works as a lead-in. If you can think of a better way to phrase this without the mention, feel free to fix it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That wording looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• How good was a "better-than-average static division"? My understanding is that the quality of these formations was generally quite low as they had men and equipment deemed unsuitable for the mobile units.

You're correct that they generally lacked the mechanized capacity present in German front-line divisions. I'm going to interpret "better than average" to mean that their infantry were generally of a higher quality than those of other static divisions, though that may be extrapolating from the source too much on my part. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You could also note that these divisions only had six infantry battalions, versus nine in Allied infantry divisions. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Rommel also deployed the 21st Panzer Division southeast of Caen to act as a counterattack against landings on what would be Sword and Juno" - this reads a bit awkwardly

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Air attacks on Normandy's coastal defences began in earnest on 5 June at 23:30, with RAF Bomber Command giving the order for bombers to target the chief coastal batteries" - this is a bit confusing - RAF Bomber Command's role in the landings was planned months in advance, so it's unclear what it gave an order to do

Clarified somewhat. They basically reverted from blanket-bombing tactics to specifically targeting coastal guns, and also did so with much more intensity than before. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• A map of the beach showing the different sectors would be very useful

I'm looking for one. If I can find it, I will definitely add it (haven't found a free-use one thus far). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• "the 8th Canadian Infantry Brigade's two assault regiments" - should 'regiments' be replaced with 'battalions' here?

Yep. It has been now. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who Terry Copp is isn't identified in the article's text

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• What's meant by "The beachhead was now overflowing with troops"?

Clarified. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Hitler had freed up the veteran Panzer Lehr Division and the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, both of which now prepared to head north to form the I SS Panzer Corps" - Hitler 'released' rather than 'freed up' these divisions, and I suspect that they were already units of the I SS Panzer Corps before the landing

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Should the Panzer divisions which faced the British and Canadians really be labeled 'elite'?

The three Panzer Divisions of the I SS Panzer Korps basically held back the entire British Second Army for six weeks despite overwhelming numerical and air superiority on the part of the Brits. In my mind that definitely makes them "elite". Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• The article is very Canadian-centric - can more be said about the experiences of the Germans who faced the Allied landing in the Juno sector?

I genuinely wish it could, but the simple reality is that there is virtually nothing written (in English) on those experiences. The only book I have that even touches on the German experience on D-Day (Army in the West) is a collection of communications between the division/corps and army level. To my knowledge, there is no reliable English source material on German soldier experiences on Juno Beach. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Anthony Beevor's book D-Day has half a chapter on Juno Beach which would be worth consulting. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will definitely do so when I can get my hands on it. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article Cam. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think I'll be able to support, I'm copyediting now. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• In general, lose the em-dashes you don't need.
• "After delays of both logistical planning and weather": could be clearer

Clarified. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• The following expressions may or may not be considered trite: "ground to a halt", "plans ... began to crystallize"

De-Trited these two. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• "most of the German divisions ... were either new recruits or rebuilding veterans": A division isn't a recruit, and what's a "rebuilding veteran"?

Rebuilding veterans - units that were badly mauled in Russia and were retraining and resting in France. The recruits were the composition. I've fixed this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• "manned by several platoons and mortar positions": nonparallel
• "the most significant were the Amphibious Duplex Drive Tanks (DD Tanks) and the use of artillery to bombard the beaches while still on their landing craft.": nonparallel, and what is the last phrase modifying?
• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• I got halfway through, down to Juno_Beach#Landing: 8th Brigade (Nan White, Red). - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Continuing. "Several soldiers from B Company succeeded in outflanking the main pillbox and killing its gunners with grenades and small arms. One LCA's rudder from B Company had jammed, and thus deployed a platoon far to the left of the rest of B Company, enabling them to easily outflank and destroy the gun emplacements.": Are these two sentences talking about the same group of soldiers?

Same group of Canadian soldiers - B Company. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The 50mm gun knocked out four of the Squadron's tanks, while the North Shore's machine-gun platoon flanked the position.": whereas, or at the same time as?

I would presume simultaneously, though I do not know for sure. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• "crippled by mines strewn across the beach": seems like an ineffective way to deploy mines; weren't they buried?

That they were. That's my terminology being bad. Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• A few more: "yet differ in their analysis of to how great an extent this was the case.": needs rewording.

I think I've fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• In future articles, consider rewording "in terms of", "meaning that", and sometimes "regarding". There's generally a more precise way of getting the point across.
• Done. Under my tweaked standard disclaimer, I expect to support after you have a chance to respond, Cam. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with most of the stuff except the Nonparallels. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not really in a position to decide what the A-class prose criteria are, particularly for English other than American English. I can try to get a sense of FAC criteria (on average ... standards differ among reviewers of course), I can try to point at things that seem "wrong" in some sense, and I can point out spots where the meaning doesn't seem clear to me. If we can get some help here, it would be best if someone would either help Cam fix the text, or make an argument that the article either is or isn't good enough for A-class, given the points I made above. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the nonparallels you brought up. I'm also planning a full self-copyedit once I find make the time to do so. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. To be clear for whoever's closing this, I don't have as much time as I used to. Someone else will have to make the call on prose, or not. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Really minor stuff: Citations 143 and 150 are the same page; ditto for 8 and 10; and 118 and 125. For most citations you do not have the publication date, but you do for many of Zuehike (2004) while some of Zuehike do not have the date. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The citation check tool reveals a large number of refs which need to be consolidated:
    • Granatstein, p. 18 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Copp, p. 47 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Saunders, p. 137 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Saunders, p. 138 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Stacey, p. 114 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Copp, p. 61 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Keegan, p. 141 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Copp, p. 52 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Van der Vat, p. 120 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Copp, p. 57 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • Copp, pp. 55–56 (Multiple references contain the same content);
    • copp47 (Multiple references are using the same name); and
    • stacey93 (Multiple references are using the same name).

All fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • The Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (see here) (no action required);
  • Not sure about the tense in the lead here: "Juno Beach is the code name for one of", would past tense be more appropriate? For instance "Juno Beach was the code name for one of"?;

I've debated this one back and forth. Originally it was past tense, but then we changed it to present given that it's still known as Juno Beach. The code-name hasn't changed since then (indeed, the name stuck). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

• • "The landings initially encountered heavy resistance". From whom? The Germans of course, so it might pay to include them in the sentence. Perhaps "The landings initially encountered heavy resistance from German troops" or something similar?;

Clarified w/ division name. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Grammar here: "and liberate German-occupied states." Should this be "and liberate the German-occupied states.";

Yep. fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Capitalisation here I think: "western Europe", probably should be Western Europe;

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "In August 1942 Anglo-Canadian forces attempted an abortive landing—Operation Jubilee—at the Calais port-town of Dieppe." Why? I think half a sentence to explain its aim or objectives might be required.

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "attack would comprise five initial infantry divisions", should be reworded, perhaps: "attack would initially comprise of five infantry divisions";

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • This doesn't quite work for me: "Within 24 hours the operational plan also called for the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade and the Sherbrooke Fusiliers to be deployed to Juno as reinforcements." Perhaps reword to something like "The operational plan also required the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade and the Sherbrooke Fusiliers to be deployed to Juno as reinforcements within 24 hours.";

Switched the order as suggested. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Tense here: "tonnage up to this point in the war", IMO should probably be "tonnage up to that point in the war";

Done. Wrong tense (my bad). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • This is repeatitive for mine: "As the bombing runs continued to saturate Juno Beach with ordnance, the destroyers and landing craft moved towards the beach and began saturation bombardment." (saturation used twice);

Fixed somewhat. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • There is some inconsistency in how you label the Canadian sub-units, for instance you use "A" Company and A Company (and "B" Company and B Company as just two examples). Either is correct AFAIK but they should be consistently treated throughout. I started to change this myself but then realised the issue is quite widespread so I leave it up to you to decide which format you want to use and to apply it;

"A", "B" it is. Fixed them all, as well as Squadron references.

• • I assume that Major-General Rodney Keller was GOC 3rd CID but this doesn not appear to be explictly stated (as far as I can see). Might be best to spell this out (perhaps in the "Juno Beach" section where you first mention 3rd CID);

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • This doesn't work gramatically: "fighting was so close-quarters that", perhaps "the fighting occurred at such close range that" or something similar;

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • "taking heavy infantry casualties but clearing the positions.", perhaps better as "taking heavy casualties among the infantry but clearing the positions.";

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Repetitive here: "While the D-Day landings in all five sectors managed to establish footholds in Normandy, many D-Day objectives were not met." (D-Day used twice in same sentence unecessarily);

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Who was General Wilhelm Richter? This also isn't clear enough IMO;

Commander of the 716th. Clarified. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • In the references: Zuehlke, Mark (18 May 2006), Van Der Vat, Dan (2003), Goddard, Lance (2004), Fowler T. Robert (1994) and Hallion, Richard (1994) all lack place of publishing;

Fixed Zuehlke (didn't use source, removed) and Van Der Vat. Will look for Goddard and Fowler (I'm not the one who added those references, so I don't have their data)

• • Inconsistency with treatment of isbns, sometimes you use hyphens and sometimes you do not.

I think I've got them all. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• • Overall, this is a very good article IMO. I will be happy to add my support once the above points have been dealt with/discussed. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Dealt with everything except for the two publisher locations (I will look though). Thanks for your suggestions! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)