Talk:Operation Paula

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Paula 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

Operation Paula has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 30, 2010	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
August 30, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
September 21, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War II

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

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

Start

Page under construction. Dapi89 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS): Done I think. Dapi89 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could do with a copy edit to improve the flow Done
What makes http://france1940.free.fr/adla/ada_june.html a reliable site ?

I don't know Jim, to be honest. I've always used this site to check French units and Orbats and I have never had cause to regret that. On the website in the citation, if you scroll down to the bottom, the editors/site admins have added a bibliography. They have cited their sources, so I trust them. Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I also used it 'cause I had nothing on the French side in my books. Only hints, but never a complete picture of their OB. Dapi89 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]