Talk:D-Day naval deceptions/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 07:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this later today or over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks! I'm away till Sunday, but will check in then. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

This is a very interesting and well constructed article - I know quite a bit about the Normandy campaign, but had never read a detailed account of the naval deception operations; nice work.

• "The operations consisted took the form" - this is a bit awkward
  • Fixed, I think --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of the 'Background' section is currently unreferenced
  • Ok, I found a good reference. It's a broad overview but Latimer summarises it well across ~15 pages. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• "617 "Dam Busters" Squadron," - British squadrons have the 'No.' out the front
  • Fixed --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• "The squadron began training for the operation as early as May 7, but were not aware of the final target or intention" - this is later than the originally planned date for the invasion (early May), and extremely late in the development of this very well planned operation. Do the sources discuss why this component was added so late?
  • Overlord was delayed from May to June in December - the broader deception plan was approved at about the same time and so none of this detailed planning would have happened till Jan/Feb - or later. So they would have known the date when planning this op. All the sources really note is that the training began quite early (nearly a month before the planned date). --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I thought the postponement from May to June took place a bit later in early 1944, but fair enough.
• "instead each bomber carried a second crewmen who rotated flying" - should this be "a second pilot"?
  • Fixed --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• "However, both plans were complicated in execution – requiring the coordination of air and naval forces in poor conditions – making them less effective than they might have been." - this is a bit confusing - given that the operations were obviously conducted in real-world conditions, how could they have been more effective? Would simpler plans have worked better, or was the bad weather the problem?
  • I've clarified a little bit; Barbier talks about how the operations didn't really live up to how the planners might have envisioned them. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why do several of the references have their publication dates set at an exact day - this seems overly precise and runs counter to the standard practice of only listing the year. Also, Levine is missing its date in the Bibliography section. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed Levine. Made the dates consistent. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I think I've addressed your points :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, great work Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: