Talk:Operation Leader/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link on Wildcat Aces.
- It looks like that book has been removed from Google Books. I've deleted the link. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No DABs.
Images properly licensed.
Specify that the Ranger was a carrier in the lede.
- Done Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to link to warship types on first use and aircraft types.
- Done Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Link air wing, squadron, task force, oil tanker, troop ship, salvage, lifeboat, scrapped
- Done Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably ought to give manufacturer for aircraft in addition to their designation.
- Done Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On 22 September an attack designated Operation Source was conducted somewhat awkward, IMO
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Luftwaffe (German air force) capaitalize air and force
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in using warship prefixes or not.
- Could you please note the issues here? I've added HMS/USS for the first mention of warships, except where they form part of a set of ships where I've only used it for the first mention - I'm pretty sure that this is the normal usage. But of course I may have goofed! Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess that your scheme is actually consistent, but it was a bit harder to figure out than I expected, but I tend to avoid prefixes as much as possible whenever nationality isn't a possible source of confusion.
Use the GRT template for merchant ship sizes and redlink the ship themselves.
- Done Manxruler (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but both aircrew men
- Done
58 percent decrease hyphen after the numbers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with that - it doesn't seem to be in line with MOS:PERCENT, or common usage in my experience. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you're right, upon further thought.

I'm having a go at following up some of the suggestions.

Ranger specified as an aircraft carrier
Warship and aircraft types linked.
Air wing etc. linked.
Ships redlinked, ~~one vessel still needing identification~~ (now identified). One more GRT template added. Manxruler (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

usages like 2,719 GRT ore carrier Rabat need a hyphen.
I'm not really sure that we need the info on the long-term fates of the ships in the article. Those should be relegate to their own articles, IMO.
- I don't disagree completely, having hesitated before adding some of those details. The inspiration for adding the final fates of the ships came from the claim by the historian Robert C. Stern (used in the Aftermath section) that the number and the identity of the ships lost due to the operation was difficult to determine, which is only a true statement if one ignores Norwegian sources (and Miramar too, for fairness sake). How do you feel the Aftermath section works, with both Stern's claim and references to Norwegian sources? Manxruler (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I'd probably combine Stern's claims and the Norwegian evidence into a single paragraph as it's somewhat different than the more generalized assessments given first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll have a go at it tomorrow then. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Had a go at remedying the situation, what do you think? Manxruler (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's pretty good, but I'd drop everything after the bit about the ships being damaged beyond repair as that's honestly not really relevant to this attack. So that you don't loose any research, I'd suggest actually building minimal stubs for the ships and adding their ultimate fates with cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll have another look at it a bit later today, you have a good point. The only thing past "damaged beyond repair" I'd maybe consider keeping is the Cap Guir bit, since Stern assesses that ship as probably destroyed in the attack. I generally don't like creating stubs all that much, when I write articles I prefer bringing them up to around B-class right away, after doing lots of pre-article launch writing off-line. Besides, if the stubs are there, I will be tempted to expand them, which I don't really have time to do these days (busy in real life with exam grading work and such). As for the research, it'll be in the history of this article anyway, so nothing will be lost. Manxruler (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The current material looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After all the aircraft had completed their attacks the force need a comma after "attacks".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]