American logistics in the Northern France campaign is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 15, 2020 Good article nominee Listed September 30, 2020 WikiProject A-class review Approved January 23, 2021 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on September 9, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that American logistics in the Northern France campaign was impacted by a critical shortage of jerrycans, more than 2 million of which had been discarded or abandoned in Normandy? Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Logistics / North America / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military logistics and medicine task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NOTE: It's possible I missed earlier refs to Thrasher & Somervell.

• Base organization, Paragraph 4: Thrasher has no rank & first name.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• POL, paragraph 3: "cleaned and put"(?) Is "and put" a typo?

  Y Apparently. Deleted "and put". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Outcome, paragraph 4: Somervell has no rank & name.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:American logistics in the Northern France campaign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm ( talk · contribs) 03:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

I'll take this review on. It may take me a few days to work through it, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Background

• There's several instances of "would be". In various GA/ACR article's I've sent through the reviewing process, multiple editors have strongly objected to most instances of the would be phrasing as excessively passive voice

  Y Except that "would be" is not the passive voice; it's the past future tense. Removed a couple of instances though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• "The Overlord plan called for the capture of Cherbourg by D plus 8" - Probably best to have a brief gloss stating what D plus 8 means. I understand this, but readers without a good military history background may not.

  Y Added a parenthetical explanation. In some other articles I have eschewed the use of this idiom, but the problem here is that D-Day moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Breakout and pursuit

• " as a deception formation" - Is there a link for this? I understand what this indicates, but it's not a particularly common phrase.

  Y Added a bit, with a link to Operation Fortitude. It doesn't explain "deception" either though... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• " There were significant differences in the way Patton, a cavalryman, and Bradley and the VIII Corps commander, Major General Troy H. Middleton, who were both infantrymen" - I'd recommend linking to cavalry and infantry at the respective points, which would help underscore the difference for the uninformed.

  Y Added links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• "and SHAEF had" - This is the first appearance of SHAEF. What does the acronym stand for?

  Y An artifact of splitting the original article in tow. I was afraid of this. Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

POL

• "The MT80 supply was adequate for the first month of Operation Cobra" - First mention of MT80, link or gloss what it is

  Y Another artefact. Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• "with the First Army burning 501,000 US gallons (1,900,000 l) per day (282,000 US gallons (1,070,000 l) on 24 August alone)" - This is an odd clause. You state that it was using 501,000 gallons of fuel per day, indicating an average, but then call out a number barely half of that as if it is a significant usage. I think there's a minor phrasing error here somewhere.

  Y Typo. Should have 782,000 gallons (2,125 tons). Aside: the Germans measured their fuel in cubic metres. Fortunately, the mental conversion to kilolitres is pretty easy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Link C-ration

  Y Linked. Another artefact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

And that's through the end of the POL section. More to come, but I've only found minor prose comments so far. Looking like a great article. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Due to the split, it has already passed GA and A class once; problems arise from the split itself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Railways

• LCT needs a link or gloss, ideally spell it out, since it's the first (only?) appearance in the article.

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Same with LST

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Motor transport

• Move the Red Ball link from here up to where it's first used post-lead in the POL section

  Y Used first here now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Through the motor transport section. More to come later. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Ports

• Link mole to the relevant article, since this usage is arguably less well-known than the burrowing mammal

  Y Done. Never seen one of the animals; there are not native. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

  We've got them out the wazoo where I live; I know some people who have trained their dogs to hunt them. Quality article, passing now. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Link Liberty ships

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Duplinks

• First United States Army

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Courtney Hodges

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Captions

• "[A jerrican depot" - Remove the extraneous bracket

  Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Final note

• The air supply section should be briefly referenced in the lead

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC) reply

That's it I believe. Heck of an article. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply