Talk:Bombing of the Bezuidenhout

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bombing of the Bezuidenhout article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 10, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that on 3 March 1945 the Royal Air Force accidentally bombed a residential neighbourhood in The Hague, Netherlands, killing 511 people?

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 3, 2014, March 3, 2019, and March 3, 2022.

Netherlands

	Netherlands portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
	A Netherlands Did you know article.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK STATS

This article got 6,670 views on 15 March 2012 and is featured in Wikipedia:DYKSTATS/Archive 2012#March 2012. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bombing of the Bezuidenhout/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General summary of review

I have reviewed this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Having read through the article, I can see that there has been quite a bit of good work put into it, however, in its current form I don't believe that it meets the GA criteria as yet. I have listed my concerns below. I order to allow the article to be improved and to give it a good chance of success, I will place it on hold for seven days. Please feel free to respond below letting me know how you've addressed these comments, or if you want any further clarification. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MOS

inconsistent English variation, for example "neighbourhood" (British) and "neighborhood" (US);
inconsistent date format: "March 3, 1945" v "3 March 1945";
per WP:LAYOUT, the Additional reading section should probably be presented below the References section;
in the infobox, I think it would present better to change the civilian casualties to the "|casualties3=" parameter and use "|casualties1=" for Allied military losses and "|casualties2=" for German losses (even if those two fields should just display as "Nil"). This is not a necessity, though, it is only a suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

is there a citation for this: "including eight firemen"? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

there is information that is in the lead, but which is not covered in the body of the article (for instance the information on the fact that the V-2s were the target). The lead should summarise the whole article, so that sort of information should be provided in the article, providing more context and detail than that which is in the lead;
in the lead it says "At the time, the neighborhood was more densely populated than usual with evacuees". Why was this? This should be metioned in the body and expanded upon to provide context;
the result/reason for the error is listed in the infobox in detail, but not discussed in the main body. Ideally that should be included in a prose section.
Operation Crossbow is only mentioned in the infobox, but probably should be mentioned in the body to provide context;
a German unit is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body, so the reader has no understanding of what their involvement was;
the "Statistics" section would probably be better presented as a paragraph of prose, maybe in an Aftermath section (see comment below about structure);
were any of the attacking RAF aircraft shot down or damaged by the German defences in the area? Or were any lost en route or during egress?
there is a quote from a Dutch resistance newspaper, which provides some details about the public's reactions, but can any more be said about this? For instance, what did the Dutch government in exile say about it? Were there any reactions from Dutch organisations that were pro German? (I assume that there were some, but if nothing is mentioned in the sources, then no dramas, but one would imagine that there was some propanganda value for the Germans/pro-German Dutch;
can anything be said about reconstruction efforts in the affected area?
"As soon as the British realized the extent of the damage, they dropped fliers over the neighbourhood apologizing for the error." --> Did they help reconstruct the area after the war?
who were the key personnel involved?
was there an investigation/inquiry afterwards by the RAF? If so, what were the consequences?
did Allied tactics for bombing V2 sites change as a result?
Structure:
- there is currently only one main section, with a couple of shorter sections. I suggest that it could possibly be restructured to enable a broader discussion of the topic. For instance, you might consider using headings such as: Background, Raid, Aftermath. Within the Background section you could discuss the context (i.e the V2 rockets, opposing forces, preparations, general war situation etc); with the Raid section you could discuss the event and in the Aftermath you could mention the results (casualties, damage to houses etc), reconstruction efforts and commemoration, etc.) AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm not sure about the licence for this image: "File:Db Theresiastraat-31.jpg". It currently uses "life of the author plus 70 years" as its rationale, but it doesn't state who the author is. So how can it be determined that it has been 70 years since they died? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General suggestion

look at other World War II bombing articles, for instance the Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) and the Bombing of Yawata (June 1944) (both of which are Featured Articles), and look at how they approach similar topics. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Per the nominator's request here, I have finalised this review as not successful at this time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bombing of the Bezuidenhout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120304025247/http://www.apogeebooks.com/indices/RocketTeamindex.htm to http://www.apogeebooks.com/indices/RocketTeamindex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bombing of the Bezuidenhout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bombing of the Bezuidenhout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility?

Shouldn't there be a section about responsibility?

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NATO style Pseudohistory: "accidental" allied bombardments

No matter what: the accidental character of any allied WWII bombardment on civilians in the Netherlands remains doubtful. You may censor this talk-item (The talk page is meant for these comments!) away again. In the end I shall not engage in an editing war. Obviously people here feel insulted by the not so glorious truth.Amand Keultjes (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]