Talk:Operation Graffham

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing this thoroughly interesting article, I have only noted a few things, most of which should be straightforward to address. I made a few minor ce tweaks as I went through as well. Otherwise this is looking to be in great shape. Zawed (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm glad you enjoyed it. The ce's look great. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   1) This sentence of the lead doesn't flow well: "Specifically Graffham provided political support to the visual and wireless deception of Operation Fortitude North; together creating a fictional threat to Norway during the summer of 1944." Suggest revising to: "Graffham specifically provided political support to the visual and wireless deception of Operation Fortitude North. These operations together created a fictional threat to Norway during the summer of 1944."
   2) The infobox: should the slash in the "Planned" field be a dash like the date field?
   3) Another sentence that doesn't flow well: "The Allies were already putting political pressure on Sweden to end their neutral stance, for example in requests for the country to stop exports of ball bearings (an important component in military hardware) to Germany." I think my hangup is the portion around the "...,for example"

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   1) Comment only: cite 1 covers a wide range of page numbers. If you take this to ACR, reviewers may want this broken down.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   1) "Permission for Colonel H. V. Thornton to meet Swedish officials" - if the sources allow, you may want to insert a bracketed comment about who Thornton was.
   2) Any info on the value of securities purchased?
   3) There is no discussion of the 7th request (false wireless traffic); presumably things did not escalate this far?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I think I've addressed all the points. There is no detail about the securities other than they were bought... and Barbier mentions the wireless traffic once, and never again... I don't think I can add anything more to those items (at least for the moment, I'm waiting for some primary source documents to clarify a few things ready for ACR). I rephrased some of the sticky sections you pointed out, I didn't get rid of the "for example" - but that portion is otherwise entirely refactored so see what you think :) Thanks for a detailed review. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Made a tweak to one of your changes, otherwise all looks good. Am passing for GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)