Talk:Operation Bertram
 | Operation Bertram 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 11, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Operation Bertram deceived Rommel about the timing and location of the El Alamein attack, using camouflage (pictured) and dummies? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg)
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Additional source material by Richardson
editThere is a significant quantity of material that could be used to extend this article, in Richardson's autobiography "Flashback". 141.0.39.82 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will have a look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Bertram/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments: Looks interesting.
1. Well written: 
Section acceptable
- a. prose/copyright: I moved a section around, because it felt out of place where it was. Other than that, it was fine.
Acceptable - b. MoS compliance: Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable
- a. provides references: Obviously I'm assuming good faith on the printed materials. Dazzled and Deceived: Mimicry and Camouflage sounds like a fascinating read (just from the title) but I don't have any of the books. Acceptable
- b. proper citation use: Acceptable
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable
- a. covers main aspects:
- b. focused/on topic:
4. Neutral:
5. Stable:
6. Image use: Section acceptable
- a. license/tagging correct: Always nice to see properly done FURs. Saves me the time of fixing them.
- b. relevant/properly captioned:
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
- a.
images that should have alt texts have them:Done.
Needs work Please consider doing this, as it does have a big impact on accessibility. - b. general catch all and aesthetics: Meh. I don't really love the image placement, some things butt into sections they shouldn't, but it's nothing major.
Comments after the initial review: Was interesting. Little piece of history I never knew about. Solid piece of work, I'm happy to promote this. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)