I'm not sure that the coordinates provided are valid for the article, as they are incorrect (they are for somewhere in the Channel), and anyway the operation did not happen in one location.
I find the rules a bit confusing myself, but should Mountbatten have his titles included, but Lloyd doesn’t?
Both are as they were at the time. Mountbatten is still a Vice-Admiral, not a Fleet Admiral, and still Lord Louis, his courtesy title as the son of a marquess, as he is not yet an earl. Similarly, Lloyd is not yet a baron. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful. AM
I would consider adding '(also written Operation PLUTO)' at the start of the article, as it is often written this way.
Is the image the most suitable available for the top of the article, it just shows a bit of the pipe on land, decades after it was used in the war. I would replace it with a more suitable image, perhaps an old WWII picture of the part of the operation.
shipped to Middlesex - it sounds strange to mention Middlesex in this context, rather like 'shipped to Lancashire', when you mean Liverpool… . Perhaps ‘delivered to a location in the London area?
True, but Middlesex is almost never used nowadays (and wasn't then) to describe a place, except when addressing letters to post, talking about MCC the cricket club, or when referring to a historical period when London was very much smaller and Middlesex was nearly all countryside. The American author misused the term. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Y Very well, but our article on Middlesex says what you are saying has been true only since 1965. Hawkeye7(discuss)
a crash programme – I would probably avoid using this term when referring to tankers :)
It's not obvious that a switch from packaged to bulk would be made after the first few days. Why not continue to supply packaged for a week, a month (like we did in East Timor), or until a port was opened? An early switch to bulk implies a high priority on the erection of prefabricated storage. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you that one. AM
The project was given the codename Pluto – Pluto or PLUTO?
I would include that the ship to shore operation was called Operation Tombola. What were the Tombolas, the products, the ships of the pipelines? Is there is citation for the name given?
I struggled to find Hartley’s 1945 article using ProQuest (I gave up in the end), but easily found it in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41362941)—is the link worth replacing?
Red-link Post Office cable ship Alert (CS Alert (1918)), already listed as a red link in CS Alert. The history of the ship here and here help to identify the correct ship.
As I haven't got access to Postan, can you confirm whether "strategically important, tactically adventurous, and, from the industrial point of view, strenuous" is someone being quoted or not?
It is quoting Postan. You can see it yourself at [2], p. 278
Thanks. AM
Please clarify capacity limitations in the UK.
Y Deleted "Because of capacity limitations in the UK"
The role of the steelworks at Corby doesn't seem to be mentioned by either Krammer or Hartley. Also, it’s not clear what you mean by ‘the now near-defunct Corby steel works’ – was it close to being defunct during the war?
Slightly off-topic, but readers might be interested to know that of the connection with Operation Fortitude (K, pp. 455-457) when an complete artificial oil dock at Dover, and that German MI never learnt about of PLUTO.
(Ruppenthal, p. 323): 'Known as PLUTO (for pipeline under the ocean), it provided for the laying of ten 3-inch cables from the Isle of Wight to Cherbourg, the first line to arrive on D plus 12.' This doesn’t seem to match the information in this section.
The quote at the end of the section needs to be compared with Krammer p. 462, which clearly describes the operation in terms of its success.
If you have a suggestion. The quote was there before I started, but I found it and added the reference. Oil is far more negative than other sources; Krammer (p. 462) has a literature review. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestion, but from a British perspective, PLUTO is always portrayed/taught as an amazing success that single-handedly provided the fuel for the invasion of Normandy, and I was interested to read of the problems that arose, and that ships were used to transport oil and petrol as much as they were. I think the article provides that balance between the achievement and the issues of PLUTO. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the war, more than 90% of the pipeline was recovered as salvage, and subsequently scrapped. Is this referring only to the undersea pipeline? If so, refer to Krammer p. 463, which talks about recovery of the pipeline being abandoned after several months due to costs.
I'm putting the article on hold to allow time for us to finish the review. Many thanks for the great work you've done on it. let me know if you think a more detailed map of wartime England's pipelines could be of use, I should be able to fix one. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
