Jump to content

Talk:Operation Goodwood (naval)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleOperation Goodwood (naval) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2019.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 23, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
July 17, 2014Good article nomineeListed
June 21, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 20, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Operation Goodwood was the last in a series of "intensely disap­point­ing" attempts to sink the German battleship Tirpitz?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Goodwood (naval)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Nick, good to catch up here at GAN again -- will try to look this over during the week and post a review by the w/e at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox checks

Structure -- Looks straightforward/logical.

Prose/detail

  • "Operating from fjords on the Norwegian coast, the battleship was capable of overwhelming the close-escort forces assigned to the Arctic convoys or breaking out into the North Atlantic." -- Not sure if "Operating from" is the best terminology as it makes it sound like the ship was particularly active, whereas it mainly lurked as a threat, didn't it? Suggest "Stationed at" instead.
    • Good point, and done (the Germans only ever planned to sortie the ship when they were really, really confident no Allied heavy units were about, so that was a bit over the top!) Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've come to the end of the w/e without completing the review, just a note that I've read and copyedited to the end of Opposing Forces and the above is what I have so far, more later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Resuming, "if these aircraft had been unable to locate Tirpitz due to cloud they would have had to drop their scarce mines into the sea before landing" -- I gather "scarce mines" means they didn't have many of them but it reads a bit oddly to me; would "valuable mines" be supported by the source?
    • The issue was that only a small number of mines were available with the fleet (the source doesn't specify whether this was because the RN didn't have many in stock or - more likely - that the escort carriers couldn't fit many in their magazines). I've tweaked this to make things clearer, though it's a bit on the wordy side. What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, all reads well to me and the level of detail seems appropriate.

Referencing -- Sources look reliable and citations/works appear suitably formatted.

Images -- All appear licensed appropriately.

Looks really good Nick, a worthy addition to your series on the FAA's abortive attempts on Tirpitz -- just let me know about that last prose point or if you have any probs with the copyediting... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]