Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Copperhead

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Copperhead[edit]

Nominator(s): Errant (chat!)


Yet another article in the field of military deception, another of the Bodyguard sub-operations. Actually, one of my favourite deceptions if nothing else for how esoteric it was. A drunk Australian actor parades through Gibraltar and North Africa pretending to be Montgomery. All inspired by a movie! Errant (chat!) 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very interesting article. I have the following comments:

  • Monty should be linked in the first paragraph of the lead
    •  Done
  • The article doesn't seem to have a link to M. E. Clifton James, who's clearly notable
    •  Done I was going to say "how ridiculous". But he is linked in the first section via his full name ;) moved it to the lead anyway.
  • "German high command expected Montgomery, one of the more well-known Allied commanders, to play a key role in a cross-channel bridgehead " - am I right in thinking that Monty's role in the operation had been publicly announced prior to the invasion? Also, this sentence should start with a 'The'.
    • Nope. At least the sources don't say so, and I doubt they would have announced it. What the sources suggest is that it was assumed by the allies, that the germans would assume that Monty would be part of any invasion :)
  • Operation Vendetta links to the Vietnam War article Battle of Long Tan - is this meant to point to a fictional invasion plan?
    •  Done fixed. Still need to write that article.
  • "Finally, there was the problem of alcohol, for which James had a particular liking" - was he an alcoholic as this suggests? If so, say it. If not, I'd suggest tweaking the wording to remove this implication.
    • Yes, according to the source anyway. Although they are a bit coy about it (IIRC). I'll check
  • "As it was, the Bodyguard deception worked well and Hitler, along with his staff, had a clear opinion of the imminent invasion" - this sentence contradicts itself: the Allies were successful in deceiving most of the relevant German headquarters in regards to the location of the invasion.
    • Yeh, it's a bit hammy. I removed it and put some more detail in from Holt instead.
  • What other preparations were the Allies conducting to try to convince the Germans that a landing was planned for southern France instead of northern France? Given that the emphasis was very much on on northern France, there seems to be little reason for the Germans to have taken the bait here.
    • Op. Vendetta was the main mover here - basically a fake invasion against the south. Copperhead was a last minute idea to support is. However, I haven't written the vendetta article yet :P
  • "Following Montgomery's public appearance on the Western Front" - "western front" isn't commonly applied to the Allied position at this time. Something like "in the Normandy beahhead" would work better.
    •  Done
  • "Dennis Wheatley, in his memoirs, commented that he felt James had been treated "shabbily" for his efforts" - why? All James had to do was to pretend to by Monty for a few days, and then he was - quite rightly - sworn to secrecy about it (presumably to protect the credibility of the sources the Allies were hoping would pass on the information and to allow the tactic to be used again).
    • Wheatley doesn't elaborate, but I'll try and put some more detail in. Betty Crichton mentions how he 'always had a bad press'. Sources are very coy on this point but basically I think it was considered within the establishment that he was a bit of a drama queen who was disappointed his role was over and he'd have to go back to his dull official job. Wheatley didn't agree and thought that the deceivers could have treated him a bit better after the effort. I'm not sure how much of that I can put in though because sources only touch on it.
  • Can anything more be said about the book and movie in the context of the operation? (was James authorised to write about his mission after the war?). Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've put a little more in from a new source :) --Errant (chat!) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review!! :) Ive fixed some of the simpler issues you mentioned and I'll look into the rest maybe tomorrow. :) --Errant (chat!) 19:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Brief but enjoyable, and I couldn't spot any obvious omissions. Aside from what I've copyedited, no issues with the prose, and structure, references and images seem okay. You've not included a shot of James though? I note there's none in his own article either but this one is a duplicate of one I have in a book on WWII that is supposed to be him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was one but it was deleted for not having source info. :) I agree it would be excellent to have on in the infobox or something. If you have the source (which book is it from??) of that image any chance you could upload it? Plus, thanks for your CE and support, fantastic :D --Errant (chat!) 10:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, of course I can't lay my hands on the book right now -- probably in a box in the garage somewhere -- but I'll have a look for it some time this week and should be able to upload the image then. Even if the copyright status is unclear from the book it'd be a clear case of fair use in both this article and his bio. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks! I'll take a look too, always good to know the source :D --Errant (chat!) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "in the event": Please keep an eye out for and avoid this phrase; it isn't understood in the sense you're using it here by most English-speakers.
    • This was my substitute for "indeed", which I think is a 'word to watch' -- hopefully we can find something we all agree on (not a big fan of "as it happened" but if there's nothing else...) ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not overly important in the lead, so I removed it. Couldn't find a wording that I liked ;) --Errant (chat!) 15:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Neptune": the Normandy landings, codenamed Operation Neptune
  •  Done
  • "one of the most famous Allied commanders": a prominent Allied commander (or, be specific)
    • I had tweaked this sentence earlier from "most well-known" but I like "prominent". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was teetotal": was a teetotaller
    •  Done
  • "deceivers" (several places): not an apt synonym for "people involved in deception operations"
    • All of the sources use this terminology, without exception. It seems widely accepted parlance.
  • "not the discuss": not to discuss
    •  Done
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • Operation Copperhead (originally codenamed "Telescope") was a small British-run military deception operation run during the Second World War.
      • Is "originally codenamed Telescope" really needed (aka would it be widely known under this name)? Can we reword the end to "... small military deception operation run by the British during the Second World War"?
        •  Done Removed & reworded
    • The overall aim of the plan was to confuse the enemy as to the exact location and timing of the invasion. and various other uses of "enemy" in the text.
      • "Germans" may be better than "the enemy" here. That makes it sound too much like a British-written history of the event.
        •  Done All changed; I try to mix it up because otherwise the prose ends up littered with Germans. (err :S). But in this case it wasn't a problem
    • ... 'A' Force's Rex Hamer.
      • Who? This probably needs a little more context. Otherwise this article looks great! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done I added 'A' Force context in the first section, hopefully that resolves this problem :D Thanks for the review. --Errant (chat!) 07:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2] (no action req'd)
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it - [3] (not an ACR criteria - no action req'd, suggestion only).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • Images appear to PD/free or and are appropriate for the article. One issue:
      • File:Bernard Law Montgomery.jpg lacks author information and the link to Maxwell AFB site is dead. Fairly sure it is a PD file but impossible to be sure ATM. Can this information be sourced? Suggest using the Google Image search function.
          •  Doing... I'm looking into this now. Any help anyone can give in locating the source of this (almost certainly crown copyright) image would be fantastic!!
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd).
    • A couple of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • 'A' Force
      • I Was Monty's Double
        •  Done
    • Can an issn be added to ref from Spokesman Magazine (have a look for it on Worldcat.org)?
      • It doesn't have an ISSN :S So not sure what to do there. I added a link to Highbeam, that any use?
        • G'day, I found an OCLC for it, which I think should suffice. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can an isbn or oclc be added for Howard's ref?
      •  Done
    • Otherwise I read over the prose and it seems fine, no MOS issues other than those I fixed myself. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (not a full review): It looks like you have plenty of support, so I only looked at presentation nitpicks:
    • the link here "the book was adapted into a film of the same name" should probably point to I Was Monty's Double (film) rather than the book;
      •  Done That was a fail moment :) good catch.
    • page numbers for the Casey work in Spokesman Magazine?
      • No idea. I can only find the online version (which is HTML format) on Way Back, no PDF of the printed version. Perhaps it's not an acceptable source? I linked to the Highbeam citation, does that help?
        • That's fine. I will try to drag myself into the 21st century... ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Howard work seems to be presented differently to the other sources; this is probably because it is the only one not using {{cite book}} or another of the same series. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I've updated this citation :)
    • Thanks for the review. --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the reviews. I've just got back from a weeks camping so will run through them all tomorrow some time :D --Errant (chat!) 12:38, 3 August 2013 (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_Copperhead&oldid=568772786"