Wikipedia:Featured article review/British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [1].
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs and sentences, the lede doesn't summarize the article, the format of references is inconsistent and short paragraphs needs to be merged with other sections. Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that there is significant ongoing work to improve the citations. I'm hoping this one can be saved, given a bit of time - Dumelow (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Dumelow is also engaged in War of the Fifth Coalition's FAR, can we put this on hold until Fifth Coalition is complete? Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold in FAR stage- significant work is being done, and with the Fifth Coalition winding down, there may be more available energy to throw at this one soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: G'day, I am trying to help out as best I can, but unfortunately I am limited to online sources as I am away from home. One of the hamstringing aspects of this is that often I can only get a snippet view of some Google Books entries. I have found this: London's Armed Police: 1829 to the Present - Page 105[2]. It might reference the paragraph ending "Thames division had the smallest rifle allocation with 61, and "S" Division the largest with 190. Fifty rifles were also issued to the London Fire Brigade, and Port of London Authority Police", but I can't tell how much of the paragraph it references because I can only see the snippet. Also, I am a bit concerned that our article might paraphrase the source a bit too closely. Can anyone see more than a snippet to check? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi AustralianRupert, I suspect I can only see the same snippet as you: "Thames Division had the smallest allocation - 61 rifles and ' S ' Division the highest with 190 . Fifty rifles were also issued to the London Fire Brigade and 100 to the Port of London Authority Police . As training ammunition was not available a..."? It was added by User:Police,Mad,Jack, who might be able to help, though they seem to only be sporadically active since 2010. I've been thinking about this paragraph and reckon it should probably be trimmed back a lot. It deals only with London: in September 1939 there were 40,000 police officers in other forces including the important southern and eastern coastal regions. What were their preparations? I think a brief summary that the police took over as armed guard at some locations, releasing troops for anti-invasion duties, would suffice. Also, if we can find anything discussing their proposed role in an invasion, our article implies they would join the fight alongside the armed forces - Dumelow (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, yes, that is all I can see -- was hoping that it might have been a geographic limitation on Google Books -- sometimes those in different locations can view more than I can. I think your suggestion to trim this paragraph would be fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The book was reasonably cheap (in the UK anyway!) so I've ordered a copy, I'll take a crack at that section when it arrives, for now I've chucked in some more info on the orders given to police nationally in case of invasion - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The book arrived and I've cited and rewritten the police section - Dumelow (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The book was reasonably cheap (in the UK anyway!) so I've ordered a copy, I'll take a crack at that section when it arrives, for now I've chucked in some more info on the orders given to police nationally in case of invasion - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, yes, that is all I can see -- was hoping that it might have been a geographic limitation on Google Books -- sometimes those in different locations can view more than I can. I think your suggestion to trim this paragraph would be fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi AustralianRupert, I suspect I can only see the same snippet as you: "Thames Division had the smallest allocation - 61 rifles and ' S ' Division the highest with 190 . Fifty rifles were also issued to the London Fire Brigade and 100 to the Port of London Authority Police . As training ammunition was not available a..."? It was added by User:Police,Mad,Jack, who might be able to help, though they seem to only be sporadically active since 2010. I've been thinking about this paragraph and reckon it should probably be trimmed back a lot. It deals only with London: in September 1939 there were 40,000 police officers in other forces including the important southern and eastern coastal regions. What were their preparations? I think a brief summary that the police took over as armed guard at some locations, releasing troops for anti-invasion duties, would suffice. Also, if we can find anything discussing their proposed role in an invasion, our article implies they would join the fight alongside the armed forces - Dumelow (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone want to take a crack at the uncited section on the RAF? I don't have much interest in aerial warfare but it seems pretty non-contentious, and hopefully easy to cite - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My wife sent me some scans from my copies of Hough & Richards' The Battle of Britain and Parker's work of the same name; unfortunately, while they imply some of these points, they don't really explicitly support most points in this paragraph. Sorry, there probably isn't much more I can add here. I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is quite a mess. Who is still working on it? Citations need a lot of work. Also, MOS:DTAB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've hit a bit of a dead end with sourcing and enthusiasm on this one, unfortunately. Unless anyone else has more resources I think this is one we may have to let go - Dumelow (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And needs a proper lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that War of the Fifth Coalition's FAR closed a few days ago. I hope someone steps forward with sources to help rebuild this article, as there has already been some great edits to fix this article. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some concerns with a few of the web sources used.
- Is the Second World War Equipment page by David Boyd RS? It's self-published, so what's Boyd's credentials?
- Is Military History Encyclopedia on the Web RS?
- The " "Restored Coastal Artillery Searchlight, Weymouth"" source does not seem to be particularly solid
- The source for approximately a mile upstream from the bridge. Further out to sea, Inchmickery, 1.6 miles (2.6 km) north of Edinburgh, was similarly fortified. The remnants of gun emplacements on the coast to the north, in North Queensferry, and south, in Dalmeny, of Inchmickery also remain is a Bing Maps link. We can do better than identifying gun emplacements through aerial photography for a FA
- UK Second World War Heritage is a wordpress site, likely unreliable
- So there are three of the Sealion sources that look doubtful - Brooks' essay (dead link), alternatehistory.com, and globeatwar.com
- What makes the Herb Freeman source RS?
- What makes Pillbox Study Group high-quality RS?
I took a look at the WWII sourcing I could access, but none of it is relevant to this topic (mostly USA stuff). With Dumelow thinking this may have hit a dead end, I think I probably agree on that. Momentum seems to have stalled out, and there is quite a bit yet to do. So move to FARC, I guess, unless somebody else steps up. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, I also don't have the time to work on this anymore, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - It looks like improvements have hit a dead end here, with significant work to do yet. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: tagged for unsourced statements and lacking reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Looks like this article will need an overhaul. Many of my concerns in the notice have not been addressed yet. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 8 May 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.