Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Military history of Gibraltar during World War II/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Military history of Gibraltar during World War II[edit]

Currently a well-cited GA, aiming for Featured Article status in the near future, yet I feel it would benefit with an A-class review first. Cheers, Chris.B 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I like the structure of the article, but feel that it really needs to be copyedited and have the lede rewritten before approval. In particular, I'd suggest including a bit on what happened to Gibraltar once the war passed it by. I'll do a bit of copyediting when I've got time. JKBrooks85 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks for your suggestions. The lead section has posed more problems than anything else so far, although your latest copyedit seems to have really made a difference, so thank you for that. I will try to take up on some further copyediting. -- Chris.B 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took care of the lede, but I'd suggest looking through the rest of the article. I think the flow from section to section needs to be improved, and I'd suggest eliminating a few of the redundant footnotes if possible — you've got a lot of [20] footnotes right in a row. JKBrooks85 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JKBrooks85. It's almost there, but I have a few observations: The wording in some places is sort of jerky, the flow is not quite A-class. Oftentimes small edits to individual sentences create this effect; where a paragraph originally was written by one editor and flowed together nicely you find well-written sentences that don't quite fit with the rest of the paragraph for whatever reason. The article does not mention specifically that Gibraltar is the only passage in and out of the Mediterranean besides the Suez Canal, so the strategic importance is downplayed somewhat. The article on Gibraltar itself mentions this, however, so perhaps that is unnecessary. Also, were there any notable air raids or attacks on the Rock that deserve a specific mention (besides planned attacks that didn't pan out)? The picture of the Italian air-raid is out of place in the section it's in, and would fit better in a place where the attacks (if any) were described. I love the picture at the top, though... it's totally badass...And the article is incredibly well-cited, I daresay overly cited(?). I can try to help with some edits, but I've been known to step on people's toes sometimes. I'd say we're 50 good edits or so away from A-class status in my book. Oh and one other thing...there's too very relevant and good quotations in the article (by Hitler and Clifford) but they use two different templates. Is that because one was a direcr quotation and one was the text of a directive? or could they both be treated as quotes? Antimatter--talk-- 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great feedback guys. I'm going to [slightly] cut down on the redundant footnotes and take up on your other suggestions. As far as I am concerned there weren't any major air-raids, or anything specifically worth mentioning; so the Italian magazine cover is largely propaganda. It is a bit out of place, but I don't know where to put it - I will see if I can find somewhere more appropriate. Hitler's quote is a direct excerpt from the directive whereas the other is a simple quotation. And I known that there is a much better image for the top of the article illustrating the entire Rock and searchlights, I will see if I can get my hands on it. -- Chris.B 10:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped the top image with another and I've changed the introductory sentence; let me know what you think. -- Chris.B 10:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I believe the article should be organized differently. I would suggest a more chronological lay-out, beginning with a "Background" that gives a brief history of Gibraltar and its preparations for WWII, then goes into the different events in chronological order such as the evacuations of civilians and attacks on the rock. An "aftermath" section should explain Gibraltar's role as a rear-area port and supply base for the remainder of the war and what role it had, if any, with immediate post-war events such as the repatriation of POWs, rebuilding efforts, etc. The intro mentions attacks on the base by Vichy French and Italian frogmen, but I didn't see any mention of these attacks in the main body of the article. The article has good information but doesn't seem complete yet. Cla68 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree w/ Cla68 re Vichy attacks. For the layout i believe that would need some simple reshuffle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, everything seems to be in chronological order now. The thing is that Gibraltar was scarcely attacked in WWII, there were only the odd frogmen attacks and air raids which failed half the time. There weren't any major damages in Gib (I daresay any noteworthy damages). Gibraltar revolved around the evacuation, the military garrison and Operation Torch, hence the more exhaustive account of this in the article as you can tell. I will try to find a source about the air raids nonetheless. -- Chris.B 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits...I like the new picture and chronological layout. This article would still benefit from some minor copyediting...I'm not quite ready to give my full support yet, but we're close to the criteriaAntimatter--talk-- 23:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.