Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Catechism/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [1].

Operation Catechism[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Catechism was the last in the long-running series of air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. Crippled by damage from earlier attacks, the battleship had been downgraded to a floating battery and stationed in a vulnerable anchorage. She survived the Operation Obviate attack on 29 October 1944 due to luck, but little chance of survival when the pair of elite heavy bomber squadrons which had been tormenting her struck again on 12 November. Two hits from massive bombs and several near misses left Tirpitz a wreck and killed most of her crew.

This article marks the end of the series I've been working on since 2013 covering the British air attacks on Tirpitz during 1944, and is now the only of these articles which is not an FA. It passed a GA nomination in August, as well as a Military History Wikiproject A-class review which concluded a week ago. I've since further expanded the article, drawing on additional sources, and copy edited it. I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your time and for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • suggest locating Fættenfjord on the locator map (if it is in scope)
    • It's in central Norway, so is outside the map's boundaries. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • can anything be said in terms of a description of the Johnnie Walker mines?
    • I'd rather not in this article, as they weren't used. They're described in the Operation Paravane article which seems to have been the only time they were ever used. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Tipritz
  • "20 No. 9 Squadron and 19 No. 617 Squadron" is a bit odd, maybe using twenty and nineteen would be better?
  • same with "No. 617 Squadron contributed 18, and No. 9 Squadron 13"
    • Both done. I'd changed the first one from words to numbers as part of the pre-FAC copy editing, and wasn't sure it was a great idea. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Tromsø area, eachboth of the squadrons"
  • could you add a sentence fragment explaining where "Bruno" turret was located on the ship?
  • "resulting in the volume of fire directed at the Lancasters to dropping away" or "resulting in a significant reduction in the volume of fire directed at the Lancasters"
    • Thanks, I've been less than happy with that sentence - I've gone with the second suggestion here. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The crews of the No. 463 Squadron film aircraft" and "and the crews of several other Lancasters"
    • I was trying to do too much this this sentence - I've split it into two. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and only one was could be found"
  • comma after "rescue efforts ended"
  • this is a comment only, but it is weird that No.9's less accurate bombing wasn't at least in part put down to the smoke from the fires created by the No. 617 bombs
    • Yes, agree. Sweetman notes though that the inquiry found that the squadron's bombardiers had the battleship clearly in their sights when they set their bomb sights so this was no excuse - presumably the smoke occurred during the subsequent run to the bomb release point, where it shouldn't have made any difference to accuracy. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • During Operation Source on 22 September 1943, she was severely damaged Remove the 1943. Believe the readers already know that we're still in the year 1943.
  • Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, the commander of the German Navy Link German Navy or pipe it to the back then navy.
  • The times here are in BST (British Sumer Time) but from 1941 until 1947 Britain had BDST (British Double Summer Time) shouldn't we change them?
    • The British Summer Time article notes that the UK moved to BST from autumn until Spring during the war. The sources also most frequently use BST, presumably as it aligned with the local time (Sweetman cheerfully uses a crazy mix of times though, which was tiresome to unpick!) Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retired United States Navy Rear Admiral William H. Langenberg judged that Britons used an hyphen between ranks before and in the WWII.
    • As this is an American rank, I'd prefer to use the spelling used in the source. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which still uses them to cover excavations on roads in the Oslo region I do not think we should link Oslo here.
  • British leadership acted correctly on the basis of the information Remove "on the basis of" and replace it with "based on".
    • Simplified to "the British leadership acted correctly on the information available to them" Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Nick. Long-time no see? I hope you are all right? Anyway, I just added an extra comment. I believe this one would be the last comment I got for you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Maury[edit]

  • I have split a para in the lede.
  • "attack was possible.[49] At around 9:15 am " - para break here? it's somewhat long
  • "next two days. In the days after" - para break
  • "correspondent Ed Murrow.[44] The success" - and here. Actually, it would seem the second part of this should be moved under the item above it, the press tour seems to be something that should be its own para
    • I don't agree - the para covers the celebration of the raid by the Allied leadership and public Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OT - "conspicuous bravery" - hrm. Given the almost complete lack of defense I'm not sure how conspicuous that bravery was!
    • I don't fancy the idea of flying a large slow bomber straight and level towards a heavily armed hostile battleship on three occasions! The medal recognised his 98(!) bomber missions, as well as the three raids against Tirpitz. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several personnel assigned to observer posts, anti-aircraft guns and ships" - the ships... that seems odd. Is that the AA ships? Can we be any more specific here?
    • The sources don't provide further details unfortunately. They focus on the fighter squadron leader, but barely mention the other men who were court martialed. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by two Tallboys.[96] A team from " - para break.
    • This para covers the two post-war investigations, which is a single topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Catechism.[107] In 1950 the" - and here.
    • Disagree - this would result in a single sentence para, which is not FA-level prose. The para also covers a single topic (the rivalry, which expressed itself through stealing the bulkhead) Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly due to the latter squadron's bombardiers inputting an inaccurate wind speed into their bombsights." - it is perhaps worth a brief note here that wind speed it was the only input to the Mk. XIV that needed to be done manually. The rest were measured automatically through the aircraft instruments. In contrast, SABS required no external inputs and measured the aircraft's actual movement over the ground directly, meaning wind speed -and everything else- was accounted for directly. SABS was thus roughly twice as accurate as Mk. XIV, and this is almost certainly the reason their very first bomb hit her. 617 put up some *astonishing* results with SABS, on the order of modern GPS-guided ordinance.
    • The inquiry seems to have not judged that this was an excuse (e.g., that No. 9 Squadron should have been much more accurate than it was), so I'd rather not go into this detail. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! I'll have another read-over in a few days to see if I missed anything. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • For UK locations, be consistent in whether you list county/country
  • Hinsley et al: Worldcat gives author as just Hinsley? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is another example of the Worldcat details being wrong. See, for instance, this journal review of the book. Thanks a lot for your checks. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my tardy return, a re-read looks all-good. Support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maury Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright[edit]

Lede:

  • Operation Catechism was a British air raid of World War II which resulted in the destruction of the German battleship Tirpitz.
  • Is it fair to say that Operation Catechism was the code name devised for a British air raid?
  • The name of operations is usually used to refer to the operation as a whole, and sources refer to these events as being simply "Operation Catechism" rather than "the attack designated Operation Catechism" or similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>It’s not about the source; it’s about providing a reader with a bit more context. Explaining that it is a code name hardly supersedes, or corrupts Operation Catechism. Anyway, this is how I see it. Pendright (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute "that" for which. In Aus/Eng, Bri/Eng, and Am/Eng "that" is used when the clause is esstenial to the meaning of the sentence. Which is used when it is not essential.
<>Missed! Pendright (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Norwegian town of Tromsø.
The link refers to Tromsø as a city?
It seems to have been a town at the time Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>A further review of the link indicates it was a city in 1940. Pendright (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right - our article on the place says it was city-sized. Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 940 and 1,204 German sailors were killed.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "sailor" in this way: A person whose job it is to work as a member of the crew of a commercial or naval ship or boat, especially one who is below the rank of officer.
Fixed 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The attack on 12 November marked the end of a long-running series of air and naval operations against Tirpitz which sought to eliminate the threat she posed to Allied shipping.
    • Substitue "that" for which.

Background:

As it was believed that further aircraft carrier raids would be fruitless due to shortcomings with the Royal Navy's aircraft and their armament, responsibility for sinking Tirpitz was transferred to the RAF's Bomber Command.
  • Consider adding the definite article "the" before shortcomings.
<>I beg to differ. The definite article (the) is used to refer to a specific noun. Shortcomings fit this definition. Pendright (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a semicolon after armmament instead of the connma.
  • Likewise, that would break up the sentence unnecessarily Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>I beg to differ. This sentence has two independent clauses. A semicolon – not a comma, joins two independent clauses without a coordinating conjunction. Pendright (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the underlying problem here is that the sentence was over-long and trying to cover too much ground. I've split it into two sentences, and tweaked the language to be clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An anchorage was selected just off the coast of the island of Håkøya where it was believed the water was shallow enough to prevent the battleship from sinking if she was attacked again.
  • Consider a srmicolon after Håkøya.
<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This might be an American English vs British English issue? This does look fine to my Australian eyes, while adding a semicolon looks confusing. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<#> Actually, it’s an Australian thing too! But if you continue to be so opposed to it, revert it so it passes your Australian eye test. Pendright (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing "if she was attacked again" to "if the next attack were to be successful."
  • Tirpitz was struck by a single Tallboy during the attack, which caused extensive damage to her bow and rendered her unfit for combat.
Consider substituting "that" for which and removing the comma.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... transferred to near the northern Norwegian town of Tromsø
city of Tromsø?
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>Same as above - Pendright (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • British reconnaissance aircraft located Tirpitz at Tromsø on 18 October.
Add the definite article "the" before British.
As multiple aircraft were involved, the plural is appropriate Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>The definite article (the) is used to refer to a specific noun. British reconnaissance aircraft fits this definition. Pendright (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to specify what the recon aircraft were, which I think clarifies this. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This violated Sweden's neutrality, but allowed the bombers to approach Tromsø from the south-east, which it was believed the Germans would not expect.
Consider this: This violated Sweden's neutrality, but allowed the bombers to approach Tromsø from the south-east and it was believed to be a move the Germans would not expect.
Tweaked into two sentences Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations - British:

  • Bomber Command remained determined to sink Tirpitz
Add the definite article "the" before Bomber.
Standard usage for the RAF "Bomber Command" of World War II is to not add a 'the'. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A report issued by the Royal Navy's Naval Intelligence Division on 3 November judged that it remained necessary to attack Tirpitz in northern Norway as the battleship could potentially be repaired and made fully operational if she was left unmolested and able to reach a major base.
  • This is a 47 word sentence without a pause - consider adding a comma before as.
  • I've split this sentence - thanks for pointing out how bloated it was. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a major port, instead of base.
  • As it would be difficult to target the battleship during the period of perpetual darkness in the northern winter, ...
Because there was some twilight and daylight for sevral hours, you might consider adding the word almost or virtually before perpetual?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A gale warning was issued that night, however, and the raid was cancelled ...
Drop however or and?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 10 November the Lancaster crews were briefed for another attack on Tirpitz.
Place a comma after November - an introductory phrase.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both squadrons moved to northern Scotland on 11 November in response to meteorological reports which indicated that there would be clear weather over Tromsø for up to two days.
Consider this: Both squadrons moved to northern Scotland on 11 November; in response to the meteorological reports that indicated there would be clear weather over Tromsø for up to two days.
I think that also splits the sentence unnecessarily Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>The sentemce is split or joined with a comma because it has two independent thoughts or clauses. Pendright (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this sentence a bit, but a construction with a semi-colon doesn't look right to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations - German:

  • The smoke generators which had previously protected Tirpitz at Kaafjord were still being installed at the time of Operation Catechism and were not yet operational.
  • Substitute "that" for which.
  • Isn't this already implied - ... "and were not yet operational."
  • Not necessarily - they could have been partially operational. They seem to have not been working at all. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In their place, seven fishing boats fitted with smoke generators were stationed near the battleship; these were not capable of generating a smokescreen which could completely cover Tirpitz.
  • Consider substituting "positioned" for stationed.
  • Subsitute "that" for which.

Pause here - Pendright (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments - I'll reply tomorrow Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>I’ve left comments to some of your above responses; they are marked with this symbol <>.  ::Pendright (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this - I think that I've addressed these responses. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All comments in this segment have now been addressed. However, please see the above FYI note identified by the symbol<#> Pendright (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attack - Departure

  • A total of 32 Lancasters were dispatched. No. 617 Squadron contributed eighteen, and No. 9 Squadron thirteen.
  • Combine these two sentences - join them with a semicolon.
  • Eighteen should be 18 and thirteen should be 13.
  • This was done per another review above were concerns were raised around having both squadron numbers and aircraft numbers in numerals in the same sentence. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 x 13 = 31, one short?
  • The next sentence notes the 32nd Lancaster was a film aircraft from No. 463 Squadron RAAF Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>I stand corrected here - accept my apology! :::::04:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair bit going on here. I've tweaked a bit to clarify that the two RAF squadrons dispatched only bombers. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the snow and ice which had formed on them overnight.
Chage which to thant
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As had also been the case during Operation Obviate, ...
Is "also" necessary?
No - it's a word I habitually over-use. Removed. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attack- Approach:

  • The Lancasters were grouped into "gaggles" of four to six aircraft which flew at altitudes ...
Change which to that
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 7:39 am and 8:50 am local time (which was equivalent to BST) several reports of Lancasters in the area were received from observation posts.
  • Is it worth mentioning who received the report(s)?
  • The source doesn't specify who the reports were first sent to - presumably the observation posts' headquarters. As is noted later in the para, it took some time for the reports to be passed to Tirpitz and the fighter unit. I've tweaked the wording here to be a bit clearer though. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to: (the equivalent to BST)
  • I've tweaked this to remove the references to local time, given that it was the same as BST. Sorting out the times was painful when writing the article, and there's no need to inflict this on readers! Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At around 9:15 am local time Tirpitz contacted Bardufoss to ...
Consider a comma afer local time.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear where the other fighters were dispatched to, as one post-attack report states they were sent to the border with Sweden, another that they proceeded to Kaafjord and two pilots claimed to have reached Tromsø after Tirpitz was destroyed.
You might consider breaking this long sentence up into two? And consider changing states to psst tense.
Done on both points - thanks also for catching this. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Tirpitz:

  • Tait's aircraft was the first to drop its Tallboy, which hit Tirpitz.
If this means that Tait's aircraft was the first to drop its Tallboy, and the first to score a direct hit on Tirpitz, perhaps it should be expressed in this or like terms?
I think that this states that concisely? Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 617 Squadron completed its attack at 9:44 am BST with all aircraft bombing.
... with all aircraft bombing - is this redundant?
No - in most of the previous attacks not all aircraft had bombed (as the pilots were under orders to return to base with their expensive bombs if the battleship was obscured by smoke) Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tirpitz was rapidly destroyed. She was struck by two Tallboys which penetrated her armoured deck.
  • Add the word being after rapidly.
  • I don't think that's necessary - this is the subject sentence for the para, with the para describing how the battleship was destroyed. The next para describes how this resulted in her sinking. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change which to that.
  • The other, which was dropped by Tait's aircraft, struck the port side amidships near the tracks for the aircraft catapult and exploded over the port boiler room.
Consider this: The other was dropped by Tait's aircraft, and struck the port side amidships near the tracks for the aircraft catapult and exploded over one of the port boiler rooms.
That's better; done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This explosion caused severe damage which resulted in extensive flooding, fires throughout the ship and a list of 15 to 20 degrees to port
  • Change which to that.
  • Replace the comma after flooding with a semclon.
  • I think that would break up the sentence unnecessarily Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current link is to the article on the topic, avoiding a redirect. As this is getting into dictionary definition territory, I don't think an article on list for watercraft is likely to eventuate. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and blew away much of the gravel which had been dumped beneath her.
Change which to that.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Tallboy probably hit Tirpitz; John Sweetman states that this bomb ricocheted off the side of the ship while William H. Garzke and Robert O. Dulin have written that it is likely to have penetrated the armoured deck near "Caesar" turret in the stern of the ship and started a fire near a powder or shell magazine.
Consider breaking up this 57 word sentence?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the first bomb struck his ship Weber ordered the crew to evacuate the armoured citadel and attempt to counter the flooding.
Place a comma after ship.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counterflooding proved impossible, as the controls for the necessary systems had been abandoned and the volume of water which was entering the ship was well beyond their ability to fight had they been operational.
Consider this: Counter flooding proved impossible as the controls for the necessary systems had been abandoned, and the volume of water that was entering the ship was well beyond their ability to fight had they been operational.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pause here - Pendright (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<>All comments in this "second segment" have ben addressed. Pendright (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • These sailors were doomed unless they were able to move to the former bottom of the ship and be rescued before their air supply ran out.
  • Is the term sailors inclusive enough here?
  • Changed to "men" (I'm trying to use language here to capture the human tragedy of the attack) Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider changing from to the former bottom of the ship to "what was once the bottom of the ship"?
  • That's better - changed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place a comma after ship.
  • Others were trapped in air pockets within the wreck.
  • Wreckage instead of wreck.
  • "Wreck" is the usual term to describe the remnants of a ship, especially when it's remained in a single piece Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly after Tirpitz capsized, parties of sailors climbed onto the hull and painted marks on locations were they heard signs of life.
Change were to "where".
Oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A total of 87 sailors were rescued from within the hull in the 24 hours after the attack.
Sailors?
Also changed to "men". Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cutting continued for two further days, and was finally abandoned when it was assessed that the oxygen supply inside the wreck would have been exhausted; no survivors were recovered during this period.
Wreckage for wreck.
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates of the total number of sailors killed vary, with the most common figures lying between 940 and 1,204.

Sailors?
Added "and officers" Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many Norwegian civilians in Tromsø were pleased that Tirpitz had been destroyed, it meant the end of an order requiring that they billet members of her crew.
Replace the comma with a semicolon.
I think that this would unnecessarily break up the sentence Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work began on stripping Tirpitz's wreck soon after rescue efforts ended, and continued until the late 1950s.
Change wreck to wreckage.
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to the end of the war German personnel removed the ships' brass propellers so they could be melted down, as well as some other components.
  • Add a comma after war.
  • ships'?
  • The wreck was sold to a Norwegian scrap dealing company in 1948, and was broken up in situ.
  • Change wreck to wreckage.
  • Salvage work concluded in 1957, by which time most of the battleship had been removed.
most remanents of the battleship?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bodies of German sailors recovered from the wreck by scrappers were initially buried alongside unwanted parts of Tirpitz, but this ceased following complaints by a local church minister.
  • Substitute remains for bodies.
  • Sailors?
  • I've tweaked the sentence to address both points Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wreck to wreckage
  • The hundreds of other bodies which were recovered were buried in cemeteries.
Consider this: The remains of hundreds of others were recovered and buried in Norwegian cemeteries.
That's much better - done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return to base:

  • One of the No. 9 Squadron Lancasters was badly damaged by anti-aircraft gunfire and its pilot decided to attempt a crash-landing in Sweden.
Add a comma afrer gunfire.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where its pilot was debriefed by Cochrane.
Reintroduce Cochrane to readers.
Added his rank Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the days after the attack the airmen received congratulations from King George VI, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the War Cabinet and many others.
Place a comma afer attack.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Churchill was congratulated by his fellow Allied leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.
Place a comma after leaders.
I don't think that that was necessary, as there were other Allied leaders. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two airmen also gave interviews; Tait described the raid in a BBC broadcast and Williams spoke with American CBS correspondent Ed Murrow.
His proper name was Edward R.Murrow.
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, Tait was awarded a third bar to his Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in recognition of his "conspicuous bravery and extreme devotion to duty in the face of the enemy, constantly exemplified over a long period of operational flying", with the citation also noting his role in leading three attacks on Tirpitz.
Consider breaking this 52 word sentence up?
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the relevant documentation did not survive the war, and accounts from survivors are at times contradictory.
Replace are with were.
Present tense is appropriate here (and it's entirely possible that further accounts will surface from the papers of veterans, oral history from their family members, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweetman judged that the failure ultimately resulted from the order to intercept the bombers being issued too late and a lack of clear plans to coordinate the defence.
  • Identify Sweetman as ...
  • Done (when he's first identified earlier in the article) Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after late.
  • He attributed the former to delays in recognising that the bombers were headed for Tirpitz, as well as inefficient chains of communication which slowed the speed within which this information could be acted on; for instance, it was not possible for German naval personnel to pass information directly to their Luftwaffe equivalents, as messages had to be sent through single-service channels and could only be transmitted between services at relatively senior levels.
This is a 72 word sentence - consider breaking it up.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel Knowles reached a similar conclusion, labelling Tirpitz's defences "chaotic" due to the poor communications between the battleship and Bardufoss.
Identify Daniel Knowles as ...
one Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British:

  • During the trip they inspected the wreck of the battleship and interviewed key German officers.
Change wreck to wreckage.
As above Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A team from the Royal Navy's Directorate of Naval Construction also inspected the wreck between 4 September and 14 October 1945 and interviewed witnesses to the attack.
  • Change wreck to wreckage.
  • Add a comma after 1945
  • This team judged that a lack of watertight integrity resulting from flaws in Tirpitz's design and the watertight doors which divided compartments being left open as the crew evacuated led to the battleship rapidly capsizing.
  • Place a comma after design.
  • Change which to that.

Finished - Pendright (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for this excellent review. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All comments in this last segment and of the review have now been addressed. Thank you for your cooperation and the civil manner in which all comments were addressed. Supporting! Pendright (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very detailed review - the article is much the better for it. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! Pendright (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Hi Nick, I think we just need an image review now -- on that subject, might be worth noting in the infobox that the pic is a painting (looked a lot like a colour photo on my screen res until I got in closer)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian @Nikkimaria: could you please check that the images here are OK? From memory, the only one which is different to those you checked in the ACR is that in Operation Catechism#Historiography. The painting is by an artist employed by the War Artists' Advisory Committee, a government agency, so should be PD under the rules around UK Government works. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I think that this is now ready to close (sorry to hassle you, but I'm keen to grab the 75th anniversary TFA slot, and asking for it sooner rather than later would be helpful for the coords there). Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Nick, but per my earlier comment were you planning to mention in the infobox caption that the image is a painting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry I miss-read that as being a pointer for the image reviewer to check that the image was OK per the criteria for paintings rather than photos. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Nick, some last-minute minor tweak suggestions...

  • Bishop has noted that while Tirpitz' crew - Tirpitz's (per others)
  • Works, Ellis, L.F. ... Her Majesty's Stationary - Stationery
  • but was done as it allowed the allowed the bombers - rep typo
  • redlink "correspondent Edward R.Murrow" - add space ie Edward R. Murrow
  • three years imprisonment - apostrophe after years?
    • Not sure that's necessary? Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • sailors killed on board her at the Ehrenfriedhof cemetery - comma after "her"
  • with her 380-millimetre (15 in) - flip? (per all other conversions imp->metric)
    • Done (I suspect I had this has 380mm as the Germans used this for gun calibres) Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add these so late, JennyOz (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JennyOz: Thanks a lot for these comments Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nick and sincere congratulations on this series! JennyOz (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again. I really appreciate your review. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Catechism/archive1&oldid=922323352"