Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/No. 3 Commando

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 discussion.

No. 3 Commando[edit]

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it may meet the A class criteria and it got positive feedback upon its initial review. Any and all comments welcome, plus if you want tweak something, that is fine too. This is my first crack at an A-class article so apologies in advance if its not yet up to scratch. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is a fantastic article, and very close to A class in my view. I've got the following suggestions for changes to bump it over the line:
- The coverage of the Dieppe raid in the lead is a bit too detailed, especially compared to the coverage of the unit's other operations here
- I'm pretty sure that the Allies were reading German codes in March 1941. Did the Lofoten Islands lead to different categories of codes being broken? Also, there was no 'Enigma code' - the Germans used the Enigma machine
- The second sentence in the 'D-Day and beyond' section needs a cite to cover its second half Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments, Nick. I think I've addressed those points. I've tweaked the lead to reduce the focus on the Dieppe raid, added a citation in the spot you pointed out and fixed the mention of the capture of the Enigma wheels. Please let me know if they still need more work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All comments addressed. This is probably one of the best articles on a battalion-sized military unit on Wikipedia. Are you considering trying for FA status? Nick-D (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure yet, I'm certainly considering it, but will probably wait a while. I want to try to get a few more of the red linked articles on the other Commando units in the template started and maybe take them to B class. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- No problems reported with disambig and external links; all images have alt text.
- Can we get a site for the line "Formed in July 1940 from volunteers for special service, it was the first such unit to carry the title of 'Commando'."

Thanks for pointing this one out, I'd thought I'd mentioned it in the body, but I actually included that in the John Durnford-Slater article that I was writing at the same time. I have now added the point and clarified it in the Formation section as I thought it best not to add a single cite in the lead as it would look a bit lonely. Anyway, please let me know if this needs any more work. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a couple of typos and some minor punctuation which I alreadyt have had a chop at. Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I proof read it a couple of times and thought I had them all. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support My issue has been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Leaning to Oppose

My chief concerns are threefold; that the article relies too heavily upon the memoirs of a member of the Commando, particularly when the final section is almost entirely cited to that memoir; that not all secondary sources have been consulted, and as such the article is not comprehensive. I have with me a copy of Charles Messenger's 'The Commandos 1940-1946' which has a large amount on No. 3 Commando, yet hasn't been utilized in the article. Thirdly, there is little analysis of how effective the Commando's actions were; whilst not possible in all actions, for their participation in the Dieppe raid Messenger is very complementary, writing that '...the Royal Navy would have suffered many more casualties in ships without the efforts of No 3 and No 4 Commandos against the coastal batteries.' (p. 409)

I'm currently busy with RL concerns, but if you cannot get ahold of Messenger's book then please let me know on my talkpage and I'll do what I can to expand the article. Skinny87 (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've added a few more citations and expanded a little in the final section based on information in the Hilary St. George Saunders book, but don't have access to the Messenger book, to be honest. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2009 (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 discussion.