Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Teardrop

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

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Teardrop

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Operation Teardrop/archive1

This article was recently peer reviewed, and I think it may now meet the A class criteria. Comments on how to further develop the article to FA status would also be great. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to wind in the See Also into the article or delete it. Also, I got the feeling that the 'Background' first section was a little under-cited - might want to add more in or repeat cites. Is the extensive discussion of the postwar mission evaluation necessary, or, since it's not actually part of Operation Teardrop, better placed at another article? The alt text for USS Mosley could also use 'destroyer' instead of 'ship.' Buckshot06(prof) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I've removed the see also (as these German operations weren't the target of the USN's barrier forces which is the topic of this article), trimmed the last para so its better focused on the article's topic and tweaked the alt text. Those parts of the background section all come from Lundeberg (who has written the most detailed and recent work on the high-level political and military background to this operation) and I'm a little bit reluctant to break down the citations into individual pages, though I would be happy to do so. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: there are no dab links, all the duplicate refs have been consolidated and alt text is present. There is one external link, however, that is dead according to the Featured article tools linkchecker. Can you please investigate this? Other than that I believe that the article meets A class. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. The link states that 'This page is temporarily out of service. Please check back later' when you load it, so it may come back. I'll remove the URL if its still dead in a few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Prose looks very good.
  • "considering attacking" could be "considering an attack on".
    • Done
  • "utilized", being an ugly word, could be just "used".
    • Done
  • "deployed into a 120-mile (190 km)-long line while the two carriers, each"—see "Multi-hyphenated items" at User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Hyphens.2A: "a line 120 miles (190 km) long"?
    • Done, thanks
  • Quite a lot of "alsos".
    • I've just trimmed these a bit
  • Consider placing "However," at the start of a sentence. Tell your readers early that you're going to contradict the foregoing in some way.
    • I've been trained in my writing-intensive government job to not start sentences with 'however' as it makes it look like the sentence is nullifying the previous one, so I'm reluctant to do that
  • "the boats found no targets" would be nicer.
    • Done
  • Radar out for close repetitions: "after being ... after being".
    • Well spotted! I just trimmed some.
  • Numeral for "22"? Where is your boundary between spelling out and numerals? I think numerals would be easier in some cases: "three escort carriers and 31 destroyer escorts".
    • I don't have a barrier; the use of both was criticised in one of my FACs, so I've stuck to spelling it out
  • "Upon"? Bit old-fashioned in most contexts.
    • I trimmed the first one, but I think that the second one is OK
  • "to quickly get information" might be "to promptly extract information".
    • Yes, that's much better, thanks
  • "he'd"—MoS says no contractives.
    • Fixed
  • The images are tiny. Some are full of detail or hard to make out at current sizes. I've enlarged a few. The V-1 image—there's a better way of displaying horizontal images (see MoS?). It's so tiny even the sighted need the alt text. Tony (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm confused about image sizing; I like the default 180px (which look fine on my large monitor) and forced resizing was discouraged for a long time, though that seems to have recently changed. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Good prose, lots of references and the pics support the article very nicely given the content. Very good read, well done! Ryan4314 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.