Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Pamphlet/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 [1].

Operation Pamphlet[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pamphlet was a World War II convoy operation conducted in early 1943 to transport an Australian Army division home from the Middle East. While many such operations were conducted during the war, this one was particularly dramatic. It was preceded by a high-level diplomatic argument, with the Australian Government and US Army General Douglas MacArthur seeking to have the division returned, while Winston Churchill and FDR tried to persuade them otherwise. Once grudging agreement was given to return the unit, an extraordinary convoy made up of four huge ocean liners was assembled. These ships were escorted across the Indian Ocean by much of the British fleet in the region, and then through Australian Waters by much of the Allied forces there. Happily, no fighting occurred, and after enduring difficult conditions on board the ships the men of the 9th Division made it home without loss. Despite the strict secrecy which surrounded the operation, it ended with crowds gathering to watch the ships arrive in Sydney Harbour on 27 February 1943.

I've been working on this article for a while. It passed a GA review in November 2014, and an A-class review in May 2015. I've since expanded and copy edited it (with User:Anotherclown contributing the excellent map), and am hopeful that it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps and including a colour legend in the caption for the first. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nikki, I've just made that change Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist ACR...

  • I've tweaked prose and formatting a bit but generally see no probs with the improvements since ACR -- pls let me know any concerns with my changes.
  • The only thing I'd question is that in the lead it says "After its return to Australia, the 9th Division was retrained for jungle warfare" but in the main body it says the division began its jungle war training before leaving the Middle East (and continued on the voyage and after returning to Australia). Perhaps if we just said "The 9th Division was retrained for jungle warfare" in the lead it'll do the trick...
    • That's a good point. The retraining is fairly marginal to the subject of the article, so I've removed it from the lead. I've tweaked the final para of the article to also avoid this wording problem. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure and level of detail seem fine.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- all sources appear reliable, external links check out, and couldn't spot any formatting issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I really appreciated reading this history, thanks Nick

JennyOz (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Just missed you before your break, but these can all wait. Excellent article, and a highly polished one too, so the few comments that follow are nit-picky in the extreme.

  • Is Operation Stepsister worthy of a red link? (Given the standard of this article, I presume you may turn it blue at some point in the future, but I have to ask);
    • Yes, very much so: the convoy is extensively covered in reliable sources, and the heated debate between the British and Australian Governments over its destination (the British wanted to send it to Burma, the Australians wanted to bring the troops home and eventually prevailed) remains a major incident in Australian-British relations. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other factors influencing the Government's decision" you were talking about two governments in the previous sentence, which could lead to confusion;
  • In rather formal structure it should be "specify of what it should comprise", but I know AusEng is less stuffy than BritEng, so I'll leave it to your discretion.
    • That does seem rather over-formal to my Australian eyes Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the "Queen of Bermuda left for the United Kingdom"?
  • We could shorten the two references in this section to the UK, rather than the full name.
    • I've used the full version of US state names (as the abbreviations for most are rarely used outside the US), so for consistency would rather leave it as the full version Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All rather minor points is a very readable piece. I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review. I'll follow up on the other points once I'm less jet lagged than I am at the moment ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Bounder: Sorry for the delay in responding: I think that I've now responded to all your comments, and thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – great article and I'm happy to support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sturmvogel_66, includes source review[edit]

  • No DABs or duplicate links
  • External links OK
  • east Africa capitalize and link
  • March 1943 we already know the year
    • As this occurred after Operation Pamphlet saying only "March" would be confusing as the Australian military continued to be present in significant numbers in the Middle East and Europe until the end of the war, meaning that the final significant reduction of Army strength could have occurred at any time. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link destroyer, heavy cruiser, light cruiser, battleship
  • Might be worthwhile to use troop ship in lieu of converted liner at some point
    • Is there a particular instance? I use both terms Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources look good.
  • Nicely done, Nick--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • A very polished article it seems, so I only have few questions. Exciting read, though no combat occurred. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bisset was frustrated by the decision to sail the transports in convoy" Convoy as opposed to what?
    • Individually, where the four liners (and especially his very fast Queen Mary) would have completed the journey much more quickly. I've tweaked the wording so it follows on more clearly from the previous sentence where this is discussed. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only give the name of the operation almost by the end in the article body. I'd think this would be mentioned much earlier? And perhaps when it was named such, and what the name means?
    • The sources don't discuss the operation's name. As remains the case today, most World War II military operation names were selected at random to be deliberately meaningless so that the enemy couldn't learn anything useful if they discovered what the operation was called: I believe that planners of this era were issued with lists of random words for this purpose which they then selected at random, and computer programs now do the job. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, could the name be mentioned earlier in the article body, though? Seems a bit odd it is only mentioned twice by the very end of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One additional issue with the images: The two maps[2][3] need sources on their Commons pages that support the information conveyed by them. I assume Nikkimaria would agree. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a reference at Commons for the map of Operation Pamphlet. I'm not sure how the other map could be sourced, and don't think that it's a requirement for general maps such as this? I certainly studied it closely (as a WW2 nerd) before adding it, and couldn't see any errors though doubtless some bumps on the front lines are slightly out of place. Thank you for your review. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok now, but I've been told many times during FAC reviews to add sources to support any information shown in user-made diagrams. I won't push this further, but here it could for example be any source that confirms that these countries belonged to the listed factions at this time. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ready to support once the last question is answered. FunkMonk (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FunkMonk: Sorry for the slow response - I've just added a sentence clarifying what the operation name referred to. As noted, the name of the operation isn't discussed in any detail in any of the sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks great. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent work from Nick, as usual. No nitpicks from me. Parsecboy (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Pamphlet/archive1&oldid=768462603"