Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Grapple/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2021 [1].

Operation Grapple

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British nuclear tests in the Pacific, where the first British thermonuclear devices were detonated. It is part of the Good Topic on British nuclear weapons. If successful, it will be the twelfth article in the topic to achieve featured status, and the whole topic will become featured. It wasn't my first choice for a FAC nomination, but I do think it is a worthy and interesting article in its own right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett

[edit]

I'm generally not a contributor to military history articles, but I'm a big fan of your work, so I'll give this one a go. Tkbrett (✉) 14:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone as far as the end of the Preparations section and will carry on tomorrow. Thoughts so far: the prose is fantastic; there's nothing unnecessarily ostentatious and it is exceedingly readable. That said, I think that adding subsections to the Preparations section would greatly improve readability given its length.
    I'm dubious of the claim that subsections improve readability in any way, and they cause problems with the layout. Anyhow, I have divided the section into subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 1954, the Cabinet decided to develop the hydrogen bomb. It is somewhat implied by the last sentence of the previous paragraph, but I think it would be helpful to add why the Cabinet felt it necessary to proceed with an H bomb.
    Yes, that is the argument. Tightened the text. The point is that Cabinet officially made the decision; in the UK decisions are more often taken by Cabinet subcommittees. There wasn't much discussion though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have specified, I was referring to the sentence in the lead.
    I'm not sure how to handle this. had a go at it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me.
  • I think tamper can be piped to neutron reflector.
    I should have a go at rewriting those articles. Last time I got only as far as revising the section on the Discovery of nuclear fission, which I made into a separate article. The tamper is not a neutron reflector. Its main role is to hold the core together for a shake or two longer thereby increasing the yield. By using a depleted uranium tamper which fissions from fast neutrons, the tamper also increases the yield that way too. About 30% of the yield of the Fat Man bomb used at Nagasaki came from fission of the natural uranium tamper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. The tamper disambiguation page led me to this misconception.
    I think there was some confusion when the neutron reflector article was written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Created a new article tamper (nuclear weapons) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truman, Attlee and Eden aren't introduced or linked to.
  • The bombs would be detonated with a clockwork timer rather than a barometric switch. This meant that they had to be dropped from 45,000 feet (14,000 m).: I'm not clear on the connection here. Why does the use of a clockwork timer mean they had to be dropped from 45,000'?
    A timer means that it will explode after a certain amount of time. If you want it to explode at a certain height, you have to drop it from a corresponding height. An alternative would be to use a barometric fuze, which uses an pressure altimeter to guess the altitude. Better still would be to use a radar proximity fuze. The over-engineered Fat Man used all three. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Using out high school physics, if the timer is set for 20 seconds, and want the bomb to explode at 12,000 m:
    g ≈ 10 m/s2, so we have
    Ah, understood.
  • Can Taylor instability be piped to Rayleigh–Taylor instability?
    Already linked to it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through this article quite carefully again but I haven't found any obvious areas for improvement. This is a very well written and well researched article. Despite its technical nature it manages to convey information to the non-expert without any dumbing-down of content. For these reasons I'm happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valereee

[edit]
  • The lead sentence reads Operation Grapple was a set of four British nuclear weapons test series...the combination of set and series stopped me. It's a set of a series rather than a series of tests or a set of four series of tests? —valereee (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A set of four series of tests. A nuclear test series is a group of sequential nuclear tests. Each test involves a separate detonation, but the tests in a series are usually related in purpose. As the lead says, there were four series: the first consisted of Grapple 1, 2 and 3 in May and June 1957; the second of just Grapple X in November 1957; the third of Grapple Y in April 1958; and the fourth of Grapple Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4 in August and September 1958. Changed to "Operation Grapple was a set of four series of British nuclear weapons tests". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Would you like to take another look at the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lead, second para: "The designs had to be tested to demonstrate that they worked." This is the sentence in the lead that actually tells us: here's what this whole article is about. Should we use the term Operation Grapple in this sentence? Like, "Operation Grapple was the program to test these designs to demonstrate that they worked" or something?
      Added a bit as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe links on first TJ and PJ?
      Added a link. MOS:UNITNAMES: Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name. I had assumed that the units were familiar since joules are on your gas bill. Mine tells me that I use 7,500 MJ per year. So a hydrogen bomb produces enough energy to heat my house for a million years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You look at your gas bill? :D I recognize joule, and assumed these were multiples of that, but I didn't recognize TJ and PJ as abbreviations. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what a "blind radar test drop" is/means. Is there something it could be linked to?
      Alas not. It just means using the radar bomb sight instead of the optical one. The closest we have is H2S (radar), but the Mark 7 was used in Operation Grapple. Blind bombing links to Oboe, which is not what we want. Maybe Maury Markowitz has a suggestion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back from vaykay. This normally refers to H2S. "blind bombing" is a generic term for all sorts of technologies, and using H2S is one example among many. But blind radar really limits you to H2S for the UK. That said, "blind bombing" should absolutely not link to Oboe! Now I call attention to "Once in the air, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter. Grandy then authorised a visual drop." This may be referring to Oboe, or a similar technology. Not worth holding up for, but seems to deserve further research in the future. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, new here...am I supposed to change from 'comments' to 'support' generally, or is that indicating I've personally checked everything? Because really all I tried to check for was readability of the lead from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know the subject area. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Valereee, don't feel pressured to support (or oppose) outright if you've only focussed on a particular aspect of the article. The coords read reviewer comments, not just the bolded declarations of support or opposition, so what you've contributed is useful no matter what. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "and the restoration of the nuclear Special Relationship with the United States with the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement." with/with. Can this be rephrased to avoid?
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Temperatures are high, averaging 88 °F (31 °C) during the day and 78 °F (26 °C) at night, and humidity is very high, usually around 98 per cent." Why the present tense given that the rest of the passage is in the past tense and you're relying on a 1960 source?
    No reason I can recall; switched to past tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Air Commodore Wilfrid Oulton was appointed task force commander on 6 February 1956,[41][20]" refs out of order. Is this intended?
    No, adjusted order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Panama Canal, passing through the narrowest locks with just inches to spare." All the locks of the original Panama Canal were and are, as far as I can tell from a google search (and my own knowledge, having passed through on cruise ships several times) the same size. Does your source say otherwise?
    It says: "She had just a few inches clearance on each side as she passed through the narrowest part of the locks." Having never transited the Panama Canal, I had misunderstood the source. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It was ultimately joined by four more RFAs, Fort Constantine, Gold Ranger, Fort Rosalie, Wave Prince and Salvictor.[52]" But you list five ships.
    That was interesting. I have corrected it. Added an extra paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Republic of Fiji Military Forces." Fiji was not independent until 1970 nor a republic until 1987. Were these forces called that then?
    Fiji Defence Force. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tests were denounced as a hoax intended to deceive the Americans into resuming nuclear cooperation;" This is a bit unclear. Denounced when? And by whom?
    In the 1990s. Added some names, but they don't have articles. The London Review of Books article is in the sources. One thing I've discovered over the years is that by adding retrospect, it is often possible to reconstruct events in a form that makes more sense than what actually happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fijian Navy our article on same says that it was not formed until 1975.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nightly radio programs" Should this be "programmes" if this is British English?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, who gave verbal approval, and a handful of officials.[120]" This would be Macmillan, but you do not say so (the last UK PM referred to is Eden) and when you finally refer to Macmillan, you do not link or say who he is.
    Well spotted. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dumelow

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, It's been a long time since I studied any nuclear physics but I've taken a non-technical read through and make the following comments on the prose. I've only got down to "Grapple series" so far but will complete the review later - Dumelow (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read through and comments now complete - Dumelow (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "In November 1952, the United States conducted Ivy Mike, the first successful test of a true thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb. Britain was therefore still several years behind in nuclear weapons technology", this suggests to the reader that thermonuclear devices were more modern or desirable but not why. Maybe "more powerful" or something would help here?
    Changed as suggested, but the reason is in the next sentence: the maintenance of great power status required that Britain also develop the thermonuclear weapons. I didn't want to get too deeply into this here because it is covered in the main article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Cabinet meeting 27 July accepted this argument, and directed the Lord President to proceed with the development of thermonuclear weapons." missing "on" before date
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire was directed by William Penney, with William Cook as his deputy." The article for the AWE states it was known as the "Atomic Weapons Research Establishment" until 1987
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Location
  • "Testing of the boosted designs was carried out in the Operation Mosaic tests in the Montebello Islands in May and June 1956" the only British weapon you've previously described as boosted is Orange Herald, but presumably this wasn't tested this early. What weapon was tested? Or was it non-detonation testing?
    The tests involved detonations. Orange Herald was a boosted weapon, but the important point was that it had an oraalloy tamper. Re-worded to clarify this.
  • Also: "This was a sensitive matter; there was an agreement with Australia that no thermonuclear testing would be carried out there" You've previously only described Green Bamboo and Green Granite as thermonuclear and neither of these were tested until much later.
    Correct. The weapons tested in Mosaic were boosted, not thermonuclear. But this sort of detail was secret back in 1955. Added: the devices tested in Mosaic were not thermonuclear to make this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was larger than the 50 kilotonnes of TNT (210 TJ) limit on tests in Australia" this is presumably a different limit to the 2.5x Hurricane limit you mention in the previous sentence, as this would be 62.5 kilotonnes?
    Correct. The two PMs had agreed (perhaps unknowingly) to lift the limit slightly. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations
  • "HMS Narvik would reprise the role of control ship it had in Hurricane; but it was also required for Mosaic, and had very little time to return to the Chatham Dockyard for a refit before heading out to Christmas Island for Grapple" Would "it had also been required for Mosaic" be better, as this was a past event?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFA Fort Constantine, HMS Messina seem to be plausible redlinks. Potentially J. E. S. Stone also (he only reached brigadier but was a CBE)
    Red linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Narvik would have to spend long periods of time at Malden," I don't think we've said Malden was to be the site of the bomb test yet, last time it was mentioned it was still a toss up between it and McKean.
    Moved the bit about Malden up higher. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of April, 31 of the men, and all the women and children had been taken to Fanning Island by RAF Hastings" you've only mentioned the full name of the aircraft in a caption previously so I missed it and was momentarily confused, perhaps expand to Handley Page Hastings and link?
    I see its named in full and linked in Grapple series, so this just needs moving up the article
    Moved up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grapple series
  • "The yield was a very disappointing 300 kilotonnes of TNT (1,300 TJ), even less than Short Granite." We've previously stated that the Short Granite test was also 300 kilotonnes so either there's a rounding issue or it should be "about the same as Short Granite"?
    Whoops. Should be 200 kt of TNT. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chalked up" strikes me as a bit colloquial
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sports such as soccer" football in British English, never soccer. If absolutely necessary (I don't think so in this case as a misunderstanding is not going to change anything important) "association football".
    Changed to "football" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grapple X
Grapple Z Series
  • I don't think the location of the Pendant and Burgee tests are not explicitly stated, were they above Christmas Island itself? Likewise locations of Flagpole and Halliard, which were presumably somewhere off the coast?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the first live drop of a British nuclear weapon using blind radar technique" I am not sure I understand this bit. Does it mean it was aimed by radar alone?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • "The British decided to adapt the Mark 28 as a British weapon as a cheaper alternative to doing their own development, which became Red Snow." Link Mark 28 to B28 nuclear bomb
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other weapons were supplied through Project E, under which weapons in American custody were supplied for the use of the RAF and British Army." Repetition of "supplied" maybe replace the second one with "provided" or similar?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Under the Mutual Defence Agreement 5.4 tonnes of UK produced plutonium was sent to the US in return for 6.7 kilograms (15 lb) of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium between 1960 and 1979, replacing production of the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire, although much of the highly enriched uranium was used not for weapons, but as fuel for the growing UK fleet of nuclear submarines." Feels like a very long sentence
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. One follow up question: you say the 1960-79 supply of American enriched Uranium "replaced production from the British uranium enrichment facility at Capenhurst in Cheshire". Capenhurst is still producing to this day (I think), for power station use, was it not producing anything in this period or just not for nuclear weapons? - Dumelow (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It produces enriched uranium for power stations but no longer the highly enriched uranium used for weapons and nuclear submarine propulsion. (Hill, An Atomic Empire, p. 99) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

All paras have at least one citation at the end, and the article is closely cited throughout, there are no formatting issues, with one exception (see below) all necessary ref fields are there to enable verification, the sources all look reliable to me except fn 62 and 63 (given what they are citing is very mundane orbat information, I think they can be given a pass), and the MA dissertation mentioned below. The only outstanding queries are:

  • The London Review of Books cite (Dombey and Grove) uses page numbers, but the linked online version doesn't have page numbers, thus there should probably be an issn for the hard copy referred to.
    Added ISSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, McIntyre's MA dissertation is questionable. Has it been shown to have had significant scholarly influence? If not, it is probably not reliable.
    What a shame. Moved to the Further reading section Replaced with references to Arnold & Pyne. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pringle's Guardian article is used as a ref, so should be dropped from the EL list.
    Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720

[edit]

I love history, though not well read in military history. Consider me a non-expert.

There's a lot of fascinating reading to be had in reviewing Wikipedia articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were part of New Zealand" -> "The islands were" or "The Kermadec Islands were" Since it's the beginning of a paragraph, it is better to specify what is being talked about.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cook would be the Scientific Director." I think per MOS:JOBTITLE this would be scientific director (no capitals.)
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ). But it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." The second sentence is awkward for me. Perhaps, "This time the yield of 1.8 megatonnes of TNT (7.5 PJ) exceeded expectations; the predicted yield had only been 1 megatonne of TNT (4.2 PJ), but it was still below the 2 megatonnes of TNT (8.4 PJ) safety limit." (change the period before "but" to a comma)
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The physicists at Aldermaston had plenty of ideas about how to follow up Grapple X. Possibilities were discussed in September 1957." I would merge these sentences by saying "about how to follow up Grapple X and possibilities were discussed"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of a three-layer Dick that used lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7), but more of it, " -> "of a three-layer Dick that used a greater amount of lithium deuteride that was less enriched in lithium-6 (and therefore had more lithium-7)," ?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the possibility of a moratorium on testing, plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, were restricted to the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." Too many commas that ruin the flow of this sentence. Perhaps, "The possibility of a moratorium of testing caused the plans for the test, codenamed Grapple Y, to be restricted to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who gave informal approval, and a handful of officials." I'm still not thrilled with the amount of commas in my suggestion, but it's better imo.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once in the air, though, a fault developed in the ground radar transmitter." remove though to increase sentence flow?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British timing was good." This feels like editorialising. Who was it good for? Also, it's a weird way to start this paragraph. I would delete and explain why the timing was good later in the paragraph.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Now, suddenly, there was incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead." -> "This gave incontrovertible proof that, in some areas at least, the Soviet Union was actually ahead in..." This gets rid of some commas. Also, what were the Soviet Union ahead in?
    Deleted "Now". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend the relationship with Britain that had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis." -> "officials in the United States and Britain seized an opportunity to mend their relationship, which had been damaged by the 1956 Suez Crisis."
    That wording would sound like it was the relationship between the officials. Reworded slightly differently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Malden Island is uninhabited. Penrhyn Island is part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand." These are awkward because the paragraph starts in past-tense, then switches to present-tense without a lead-in. Perhaps, ""Penrhyn Island remained part of the Cook Islands, a self-governing dependency of New Zealand. Malden Island remains uninhabited."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and paid for by a veterans' organisation[160] in New Zealand" Can the citation go after New Zealand?
    Moved to end of sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in another test done by the same Massey University team, for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes, the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this, non-germline abnormality, was found." -> "The same Massey University team did another test for chromosome translocations within peripheral blood lymphocytes and the author of the study, R. E. Rowland, suggested that a statistically higher rate of this non-germline abnormality was found." Again, trying to delete some commas for flow.
    Changed along the libnes suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 164, since you have places academic journals in the "References" section, this ref should also be a sfn with the longer text placed in references.
    Moved to the references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISBN for "Macmillan, Harold (1971)" needs dashes to be consistent with the other sources.
    Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the pdf in "Further reading" not used as a source in the article?
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, if something cannot be used as a source Wikipedia should not recommend the source in "Further reading". However, this will not prevent my support of the article.
    WP:Further reading: Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate Fortunately my own Masters thesis is considered reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns were addressed. I support this nomination. Made a comment above about Further reading. Z1720 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

Lead

Background

  • General question: You use Britain (not Great Britain) and United Kingdom interchangeably. Is that correct? They're not the same thing.
    I discussed this with members of Team GB at the Paralympics in Rio in 2016. They said: "Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland". I then said: "So you don't have any athletes from Northern Ireland?" And they said: "Uh, well, actually, quite a few." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "September 1944 Hyde Park Agreement" no link/article?
    It has no article, being too small. Instead we have Quebec Agreement#Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire but the Quebec Agreement is already linked. Let me know if you think the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire should also be linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Location

Preparations

More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple series

Grapple X

Grapple Y

Grapple Z series

Aftermath

Summary

Refs

External links

  • Are ten external links necessary? I get some link out to photos but surely if the others have relevant material, they should be incorporated directly into the article with inline refs?
    Cut them back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, a really interesting read, nice work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi TRM. In passing, that is a really good review above. I will be looking to close this in a couple of days, so if there is any follow up to come, or a support or oppose, it would be good to chip it in sooner rather than later. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (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_Grapple/archive1&oldid=1039221202"