Talk:Rommel's asparagus

Pre-GA comments

I'm not sure that this article is quite ready for GA status yet. My main problem is that of the structure - at the moment it's rather random. I would suggest that the current structure be replaced with something like:

• Design and Development
• Operational history
  • Normandy
  • Southern France

That would seem to make sense. The information within the article also needs reorganizing, as it isn't gathered together quite coherently at the moment. In the Normandy section, for example, the Tonga and American airborne landing experiences aren't placed together, which would seem to make more sense, and then place the German useage of the Rommelspargel after that for a chronological timeline of their use. The Riviera section is also confusing in terms of how it's put together - it's almost random. You get the 551st mentioned first, and only two sentences later is the FABTF mentioned, even though the 551st came under its command, and it would seem to make sense to reverse this: mention the parent unit first, then the battalion. There's also the odd comment at the end; although apt, it does come rather suddenly - perhaps some rewriting is required, like 'An officer in the 551st, Major "Pappy" Herrmann, saw the damage inflicted upon the gliders by the wooden poles and came to the conclusion that "I'll stick to parachutes."' This is a really good article, on a subject I didn't think one would be able to gather so much info, but it needs some restructuring and chronological reorganizing. Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also an uncited sentence: 'On plans that Rommel sent to his subordinates, the complete system of wooden poles and interconnecting wires was called Luftlandehindernis.' And the Hemmbalken information is mentioned in the lede, but not the body of the article, as is required by the MoS and so forth. Skinny87 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll tackle those issues tomorrow when I have a moment. Good observations! Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Darn, I didn't get those things fixed before my holiday travels. I can't get to them until about December 28. I'm very interested in making the article as good as it can be, so thanks in advance for a few days of leeway. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please take another look at the article. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rommelspargel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm... since it's been a month and a half since the above was left, and there was no "in review" sign on the GAN page, plus the above reviewer's talk page has "get well soon" on it, I'll be taking over the reveiw... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

• There is no need to cite information in the lead if its also cited in the body of the article
• Explain who Leigh-Mallory is for the non-military people
• Cut the "popular culture" section. A mention of the item in a poem doesn't tell us anything at all about the defensive strategy.
• The Hymoff reference needs page numbers.
• Current ref 6 appears a bit borked, needs fixing (I haven't the slightest clue how to or I would have.)
• Might be a hair overlinked, suggest reassessing - might not need barbed wire, shells, United Kingdom, German, etc.
• Suggest quick explanation of what "bocage" is so you don't lose your readers to some other article.
• Might want to stagger pictures left and right.

Main problem is the pop culture section and the little bits off. Otherwise a nice article! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this GAN! You bring up good points, and I will address them. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Argh! I would like a little more time, as real life and some other WP concerns have my main attention for the next five days. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Take your time. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Some fixes late on my St. Paddy's day, indicated by strikethroughs... Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully those last couple points can be quickly addressed so this can be passed; not much movement going on here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1940 use of spargel-obstructions by the dutch army.

In the article Peel-Raam Line you may read about 1940 spargel-obstructions used by the dutch army against the German army. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Very interesting news which will certainly affect this article. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See this dutch private site: http://www.mill1940.nl/ and especially http://www.mill1940.nl/heteinde.htm --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The use of such defences by the Dutch wouldn’t be surprising, though the items in the photograph on the Dutch site look more like anti-tank obstacles: I also found this relating to British 1940 use; see below. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Design and development

I’ve added a caveat to the Design and Development section, as there’s nothing new in using sharpened wooden poles as obstacles (battle of Falkirk, Agincourt? There are probably examples that go back to Roman times) and their application to defending against invasion from the sky only slightly post-dates the advent of air-landing by troops itself, as I’m pretty sure the British put sharpened stakes in fields to deter paratroops in 1940. I found this relating to British 1940 use, though they look more like steel anti-tank obstacles; the text mentions obstacles on lakes against seaplane landings, but not pointy sticks against paras. In the end, I’d have thought the actual value of the tactic far outweighed by the effort and resources required to provide adequate coverage. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
PS: And then there's this (esp 4.30-40)... Xyl 54 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)