Talk:Flame fougasse/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Overall, I regard this as a good article (which is not the same as a Wikipedia:Good article); however, it needs a little more work before I can award GA-status. I've lightly cleaned up the article by adding some dual units were only Imperial units were used, as I worked my way through it so I'm not listing these as "problems" to be fixed.

The article is generally well referenced, well-illustrated, and is reasonable comprehensive in scope.

The first problem is the WP:Lead. This should act both as an introduction to the article, which it does, and provide a summary of the the main points. The half-paragraph The flame fougasse was developed in Britain as an anti-tank weapon during the invasion crisis of 1940 and was deployed in large numbers.[2] The flame fougasse has since been used in a number of conflicts and remains in army field manuals as a battlefield expedient to the present day.[3] In a modern military context, the name may be contracted to simply fougasse and may be spelt foo gas.[4] is hardly a summary of the main points (the final sentence is not a summary, its part of the "introduction" since it discuses a topic of naming which does not appear in the body of the article). The current lead needs to be expanded considerable (possibly 100 - 200 per cent, but that is not the pass-fail criterion) and provide a concise summary of the main points.

The second problem is the use of a few WP:Primary sources. By that I mean the citation of WO-, SUPP- and MUN- references (I have a Reader's ticket so I know exactly what these are).

"Livens" appears in the Oxford Dictionary of the National Biography (Oxford DNB), so WP:Verifiability of his contribution can be achieved by citing Oxford DNB without the recall of primary War Office files. Unfortunately, Sir Donald Banks does not appear, but several other members (including Livens) of the PWD do have their biographies in the Oxford DNB.
Possibly this topic appears in the volume "Design and Development of Weapons" in the series History of the Second World War, United Kingdom Civil Series, It is several years (about 15 years) since I last looked at it and I don't own a copy, so I can't easily check.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold.

I'm willing the discuss, on this review page, if necessary, the use of WP:Primary sources, but not a substitutes for information that is readily available elsewhere.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec: Thanks for you efforts. I have expanded the lead, let me know what you think.

Yes, the article uses quite a few primary sources. While there are many secondary and tertiary sources that mention these weapons none of them go into any significant level of detail. These things were never used in Britain, and unlike other odd weapons of the time they were never seen in Home Guard parades (presumably, they were largely kept secret from the general public) and, mostly destroyed before the war had ended, they never found their way into museums. It seems that to historians these weapons are all but invisible.

I have added a couple of secondary/tertiary references that briefly describe what a flame fougasse is.

Previously I had given the most detailed and definative reference I could find and sometimes that meant NA records. In most cases I have been able to find supplementary references and I have added these – the NA records could be removed, but I think at least some readers might find them useful.

It might be argued that beyond the NA references, most of the other references are to various memoirs which are also primary sources. Given that the article is a matter-of-fact description of physical things, I don't think that any of the details are in any way contentious. These references are not substitutes, they are the only available sources.

Gaius Cornelius (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford DNB entry for Livens is really all about his work in WWI, his contribution to WWII is dismissed in a single line mentioning that he worked for the Ministry of Supply.

Further comments

I am still concerned over the use of Original Records and the arguement "that there is no alternative": some citations I'll probably have to accept, but some are plainly not acceptable in their current form, i.e.:

Inception -

Ref 11: Livens WH Captain - WO 339/19021, used in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs (at [1] ). I'll accept, as it appears to be a single file.
Ref 13: Gas and Chemical Supplies - MUN 5, used in the 3rd paragraph (at [2] ) is clearly not acceptable as an inline citation as it consists of 419 boxes and files, some of which were used in the preparation of History of the Ministry of Munitions, and is therefore not WP:Verifiable in its current form. Its a "further reading", not a citation.

For information, the History of the Ministry of Munitions is obviously available at the National Achive (as a primary source - MUN5), but it's also (I beleive) on the open shelves at the National Archives as a set of bound copies entitled the "Official History of The Ministry of Munitions"; and they been published in facsimily by Naval and Military Press (see [3]) in twelve volumes. Using the argument of there is only primary sources wears a bit "thin", when MUN5 as a whole is used instead individual published volumes, and page numbers.

I have made a much more precise reference to a particular report in MUN5 - it is sort of executive summary of flame warfare work. An alternative reference to "Palazzo 2002, p. 103." is also provided. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The William Howard Livens article on wikipedia, uses a book by Simon Jones, (see [4]) which has a chapter on WW I use of the Livens Projector.

I have added a reference to Jones 2007. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the Official Histories of the Second World War, again they are available at the National Achive (as a primary source), but aslo in published form: first by HMSO/Longmans Green and later republished.

I really don't know. I cannot find anything useful via on-line searching. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are on the open shelfs at Kew, since reference are made to files in the National Archives I asssume that have been read, and not merely included as "padding" - the on-line catalogues only provide verification that the files exist, not that the files verify what is stated in the article. I've not been to Kew during this review, otherwise I would have checked the files as well as the Official Histories. Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this review? Been a month since it started and a week since the above comments. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been too busy to find much quality time on Wikipedia just at the moment, but I am trying to catch up. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the NA references except one minor point now have supplementary non-NA references too. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting article on a topic that appears not to be at that well known.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
I've given this a "yes" mark, but I do regard the use of original files in the National Records (formerly PRO) to be boarding on OR.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]