Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Freshman

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.

---

Operation Freshman

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Operation Freshman is an important British airborne operation. Inspired by an article in Britain at War magazine where they located one of the two gliders, I have decided to try and get this to FA to give this tragic but important operation more coverage. I hope you can all help me in achieving this goal. Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I've taken the liberty of making a few style changes, including shortening some of the background in the lead to make it more of a summary, but perhaps I went too far. Beyond that, I'd like to see more information on the operation itself. The preparation and background is solid, but I'd like more info on during and after the operation. For example, what were the circumstances under which the crew were taken prisoner? How did the Germans find the glider? Also, I find the aftermath a little wanting. Did the Germans take additional security measures after the attack? What lessons did the British learn? Did they alter tactics in future glider operations? etc. Perhaps this information isn't out there, but if it is the article would certainly benefit from it. Cool3 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you, but I've reverted your changes, as they did go a bit too far, especially in the main body of the text. All of the information I have available to me about the operation, and that I know of that is available, is in the article. I'll try and scare up some on the British alterations made post-operation, but as to the bits about how the Germans found the glider, for example, I'm not sure we'll ever know, what with all the survivors being executed. Skinny87 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum. Found a little info in the Britain at War magazine, will add it in tomorrow! Skinny87 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to style, and btw this is in no way because you reverted my changes. The third sentence is a non-sequitur, the article goes from talking about the operation to the German atomic weapons program, and it's not for several sentences that it becomes clear why. I really consider this rather unnecessary background for the lead, and it should at least be prefaced with some sort of link, for example "the operation targeted" or something to that effect.

Phrases like "In late October, Operation Grouse took place" don't really bring anything to the table. Saying what actually happened is more useful for the reader, and the name of the operation is a secondary concern relative to what it actually accomplished. Thus, what happened should be mentioned first. Anyway, good job overall and I hope that you manage to find some sources to answer some of the questions I asked; I know that can be a challenge, so good luck. Cool3 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, they're real helpful! I'll get to work as soon as I can. Skinny87 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Righto, I'll get to adding the extra info tommorrow, well start anyway. But I've just redone the Grouse sentence and rewritten the lead. Could you take a look and see what you think of it now? Skinny87 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, as an addendum, whilst the magazine and my books might eke out a few more sentences of decent info, I'm in a bind. There was a book published in 2007 that I just found specifically on Operation Freshman. Given the date and number of pages it would seem to be quite in depth. It's not a huge amount, but I'm a student with limited funds, and google books doesn't give even a limited preview of the book; my local library doesn't have a copy either. So I'm not sure what to do in terms of the book - if the article can pass without it, specifically. Skinny87 (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the title of the book? I have access to just about any book you want, and I could find it for you and extract the info. Cool3 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think the changes you made were good, and really do help the article. Cool3 (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, that's kind of you. I'm off to bed right now, but I'll look the title up iin the morning! Skinny87 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - as of this writing, the article is uncategorized, and I could tag it with {{uncategorized}}, but since this is open I'll make note here. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to some amazing work by Cool3, the article has been expanded even further, and is now categorized. Skinny87 (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. Cool3 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have changed Wehrmacht to Heer/Army. Wehrmacht is akin to saying the British forces (army, navy, air force).

Should SS not link to Waffen SS ?

Nikolaus von Falkenhorst was the German commander in Norway at the time and would have signed the execution orders, while not the local commander he could be added to the German side in the inf box.

Some minor nit picking points which does not stop me supporting the article.

• Support see above --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I changed the SS link, and cheers for the Heer link; I've edited it slightly to point to the 1935-1945 Heer if that's okay. As to Falkenhorst, none of my sources mention him, but it's a good point; would it constitute Original Research to put him in there? I have a book on Freshman that came out in 2007 arriving in a few days; perhaps I should see if he's mentioned in that? Skinny87 (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I found several minor, nit-picky things that do not prevent my support for A-Class, but will help with FAC:
  • In the sentence Both combinations managed to reach the Norwegian coast, but neither were able to reach their objective., shouldn't it be neither was able to reach its objective? Or is this an American v. International English thing?

Nope, you'reright; changed it

• • Maybe to avoid so many combinations back-to-back, you could vary the terminology, like, "the first pair" (assuming it was a pairing of 1 airplane and 1 glider). Also, repetitive use of killed outright. Can the clunky phrase executed for their part in the executions be reworded, perhaps?

All changed!

• • I've corrected several compound adjectives that were joined with en dashes rather than hyphens

Ooh, cheers for that, I always try and stay on the safe side with endashes andf put them everywhere.

• • In the sentence beginning The selected troops were volunteer parachutists… can you replace the ambiguous as in the phrase as the only parachute-trained Royal Engineers…? Does it mean while or because? Similarly, in the sentence beginning As the operation was considered to be extremely important….

Done

• • The phrase Both of the duplicated units refers to the commando groups, right? It's a little ambiguous coming right after the descriptions of various Royal Engineers units.

Clarified, hopefully

• • The term "SOE agents" is used without introduction or a link. Who or what was "SOE"?

It was introduced in the section above and wikilinked, bnut I put (SOE) after the initial wikilink for ease of identification

• • The low-saturation image of the plant might be mistaken for an archival black-and-white photo. Indication that it is a contemporary photograph might be helpful.

Added 'In 2008'

• • In the phrase he believed that if it were delayed…, who is the he: Cooper, or the Norwegian meteorologist?

Cooper; clarified

• • The caption for the image of the glider should be tied into the article better.

Done

• • For the second combo, the article relates that the second plane crashed, and then goes on to talk about the glider crash-landing. It would be better to make more explicit why the glider was able to continue. Did the plane release it, then crash? Or was the glider freed by the crash? Or…?

Clarified

• • Thinking of a non-military-oriented reader, "NCO" should be spelled out or linked, at the very least

Both done!

• • Given your inspiration for the article, why no mention of the recent discovery of the glider?

I wasn't really sure if it was relevent, but I'll add about it from the magazine when I get home and can access it.

• This is an interesting article on an action I'd never heard of before. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll get to them tomorrow! Skinny87 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Righto, everything's done except the discovery of the glider, which I'll add as soon as I can! Skinny87 (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Still supporting. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

---

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.