Per WP:LEAD, the lede should only be one–two paragraphs (tops)
Done, I don't see what I could cut from the lead though... I expanded it based on comments above which suggested it was too vague :D
invade occupied Norway. - Occupied by?
Clarified this
far from enthusiastic - unenthusiastic says the same thing, with less wasted bytes
Done, thanks
much of the preparation - Much of the preparation or most of the preparations (maybe this is a BrE/AmE thing)
Unclear. Sources say "much" and don't equivocate. --Errant(chat!) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In American English, at least, I'd expect to see "most of the preparations" as preparing for something is generally not a matter of just doing one thing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
apparent obsession - According to?
Toned this down, thanks
In short, it was a deception for the sake of doing something. - This sounds like it should be given in-text citation as someone's opinion
I've rewritten this section in a way that should address this issue (i.e. that sentence is no longer there :D) --Errant(chat!) 09:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the LCS lacked guidance from Cairo - You've repeated this twice in as many sentences
Addressed this I think :) thanks
Link double
LCS member Dennis Wheatley had picked it from a book of codewords, following the established directive that codenames should not be related to the actual operation, a fact which had to be explained to Stanley. - Feels like you're wandering
I rewrote this paragraph. Does it look better? --Errant(chat!) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
with many considering - Many what? Your subject was "preparations"
many == people from the armed forces, is there a better way to express this?
the armed forces, who generally considered.... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, gotcha thanks :) --Errant(chat!) 09:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've used LCS in the lead, why not use it in the body?
Trying not to overuse the shortened version.. I'll look at it :)
When did Stanley leave politics? This comes out of left field. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems more relevant to the London Controlling Section article, I added the note as to what he moved on to per a comment above that it otherwise suggests he was sacked for the poor performance of Hardboiled. But the relevant fact is it was Stanley's op. and he moved on. I'll look into your other comments later. Thanks for the review! --Errant(chat!) 16:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a brief comment about his previous political career in the "Background" section, when we first meet Stanley. Hopefully that addresses the issue :) --Errant(chat!) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
