Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Catechism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Catechism[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Catechism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

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 an unsuitable 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 2 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, and is now the only of these articles which is not a FA. The article was assessed as a GA in early August, and has since been further expanded and copy edited. I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria, and would appreciate any comments regarding further areas where improvements are needed ahead of a FAC. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • through the Norwegian Sea to the Soviet Union Link the USSR.
  • to oversee an emergency training program for the fighter pilots American program.
  • formed on them overnight in time.[36][33] Reorder the refs here.
  • I think we need to standerise the time usege like we have the 12-hour and the 24-hour clocks here.
  • off between 02:59 and 3:25 am BST Really odd to see first the 24-hour clock and then the 12-hour one.
  • aircraft between 03:00 and 03:35 am BST Remove "am" or the noughts here because it really looks odd now.
  • rendezvoused over Torneträsk lake.[38][33] Reorder the refs here.
  • from a range of 5 miles (8.0 km) Round the nought here.
    • I didn't know you could do that in the convert template - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • unwanted parts of Tirptiz, but this Typo of Tirpitz.
  • They were also all granted a 48 hour period of leave You mean 48-hour or 48 hours?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries, it looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Nikki could you please have an image review here? If you do then this one is ready to go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this article during its Milhist ACR, so I have very little to add:

  • Luftwaffe doesn't need to be italicised per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, as it is now in the Merriam-Webster dictionary
  • do the sources say which RAF bases were used to actually mount the attack?
    • Sorry, I missed this at GAN - I've just added this. Oddly, none of the sources specify how many aircraft flew from which airfield, despite almost all providing this for Operation Obviate! Presumably the relevant documentation was lost before historians could draw on it. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Weber believed that within three weeks the days would be short enough to prevent further air attacks."
    • That sentence had been bugging me - thanks Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "as they could not be cleared in time of the snow and ice which had formed on them overnight."
    • Likewise - also fixed.
  • "The loss of Tirpitz was a disaster for the German military" seems an extraordinary claim, given she was effectively disabled by the time of Catechism and posed no threat to Allied convoys, and therefore the Germans could not have been relying on her to do so.
    • I've toned this down to be truer to the source. The British official history (which I've consulted since the GAN) also reached a similar conclusion due to the loss of life and the fact that it finally ended the German Navy's pretensions at being an ocean-going force. I've been looking to see if any sources criticise the German leadership for keeping this deathtrap in commission beyond the point where it was achieving anything worth the number of lives which were lost, but they don't for some reason. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Add |lastauthoramp to the multi-author book templates to match the ampersand used in the cites.
  • Otherwise cites and refs are properly formatted.
  • Sources used are comprehensive and fully RS.
  • For more info on the JG 5 situation, I'd suggest reading: Mombeek, Eric (2011). Eismeerjäger—Zur Geschichte des Jagdgeschwaders 5—Band 4 [Fighters in the Artic Sea—The History of the 5th Fighter Wing—Volume 4]. Linkebeek, Belgium: ASBL, La Porte d'Hoves. ISBN 978-2-930546-05-6 and Girbig, Werner. Jagdgeschwader 5 >>Eismeerjäger<<: eine Chronik aus Dokumentation und Berichten 1941-1945, 1974 3-87943-365-8 with Mombeek likely the better source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that I don't know any German. Do these sources add much beyond the fairly detailed, yet fairly easy to summarise, coverage in English-language sources? Thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No idea, but I know that I'd like more info on why they failed in their mission. But that'd be a "nice to have", not a "have to have".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The most authoritative discussions of this (such as Sweetman) state that it's not possible to conclude why the fighters failed. It seems to have been a total stuff up, due to the chaos affecting the German military units in northern Norway at the time and startlingly bad inter-service cooperation. I'll look to expand this a bit ahead of FAC. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Nick, not much for me to comment on. Just a couple of minor suggestions/observations; otherwise looks pretty good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tromso is overlinked in the lead
  • Tirpitz was repeatedly attacked by British forces. --> "Tirpitz was repeatedly attacked by British forces over several years"?
  • between 22–29 August 1944 --> "between 22 and 29 August 1944"
  • Operation Catechism lead to --> "Operation Catechism led to"
    • Fixed. Thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Bulkhead_from_the_German_battleship_Tirpitz_at_RAF_Museum_Hendon_in_November_2011.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: ...probably not PD given that 1996 is the URAA date for Germany, so removed. That said, the copyright status for this painting is complex (painted by anonymous German military personnel in World War II, sold as part of the ship's wreck to a scrap company, recovered and handed to the Norwegian Government, then donated to the Royal Air Force who still own it and have placed it on permanent public display!), so I'll try to figure this one out. Thanks for the review. Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Catechism&oldid=912552350"