Jump to content

Talk:Operation Leader/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a go at following up some of the suggestions.
  • Ranger specified as an aircraft carrier
  • Warship and aircraft types linked.
  • Air wing etc. linked.
  • Ships redlinked, one vessel still needing identification (now identified). One more GRT template added. Manxruler (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • usages like 2,719 GRT ore carrier Rabat need a hyphen.
  • I'm not really sure that we need the info on the long-term fates of the ships in the article. Those should be relegate to their own articles, IMO.
    • I don't disagree completely, having hesitated before adding some of those details. The inspiration for adding the final fates of the ships came from the claim by the historian Robert C. Stern (used in the Aftermath section) that the number and the identity of the ships lost due to the operation was difficult to determine, which is only a true statement if one ignores Norwegian sources (and Miramar too, for fairness sake). How do you feel the Aftermath section works, with both Stern's claim and references to Norwegian sources? Manxruler (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd probably combine Stern's claims and the Norwegian evidence into a single paragraph as it's somewhat different than the more generalized assessments given first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll have a go at it tomorrow then. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Had a go at remedying the situation, what do you think? Manxruler (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's pretty good, but I'd drop everything after the bit about the ships being damaged beyond repair as that's honestly not really relevant to this attack. So that you don't loose any research, I'd suggest actually building minimal stubs for the ships and adding their ultimate fates with cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll have another look at it a bit later today, you have a good point. The only thing past "damaged beyond repair" I'd maybe consider keeping is the Cap Guir bit, since Stern assesses that ship as probably destroyed in the attack. I generally don't like creating stubs all that much, when I write articles I prefer bringing them up to around B-class right away, after doing lots of pre-article launch writing off-line. Besides, if the stubs are there, I will be tempted to expand them, which I don't really have time to do these days (busy in real life with exam grading work and such). As for the research, it'll be in the history of this article anyway, so nothing will be lost. Manxruler (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • After all the aircraft had completed their attacks the force need a comma after "attacks".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]