Talk:Operation Cockpit/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 20:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• At four sentences, the lead is a bit short compared to the overall length of this article.
  • Good point - I've added a second para. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Add a short description
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• You mention British and American first, but then throw in Allied later. It can't be assumed that everyone knows the basics about WWII, unfortunately, so that Britain and America were part of the Allies should be explained (and Allies probably linked to the applicable article)
  • Removed the use of the term in the lead, and it's linked where it's first mentioned. I think that anyone reading the article will know that the Americans and British were Allied in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Background

• Link Admiral to the article about this rank in the British Navy
• Link Rear Admiral
  • My understanding is that ranks aren't usually linked when people are in general articles, as the article on the person will explain this. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I see no issue with that. Personally, I've had ranks requested to be linked in battle articles I've worked on (such as Battle of Cane Hill), but that's not a strict GA requirement

Attack

• Consider linking the various types of aircraft. For instance, the average reader may not know the difference between a torpedo bomber and a dive bomber
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Is Bob Hackett a subject matter expert? I'm not familiar with him, and Bob Hackett seems to be a very different purpose. Hackett & Kingsepp is self-published by Hackett, so he would need to have good credentials.
  • Combinedfleet.com is a widely cited source in books on the Pacific War, and has been held to be reliable in lots of featured articles, etc (see [1] for Google Books results). Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• I feel like Gill, G Herman should be Gill, G. Herman unless Gill's first name is a single letter in a Harry S Truman-type thing.
  • Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• If the HMSO is an abbreviation, not the publisher's official name, it should be spelled out.
  • This is a weird one: it appears in books as His/Her Majesty's Stationery Office up to a certain point in time, and from then on is always HMSO. Presumably the organisation shortened its name to be more modern or less clunky. As a result, the article uses both based on what's in the publishing details page of the books! Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• That seems like a really weird place to put the Commons link.
  • Good point - I've moved this to the last section per MOS:ELLAYOUT. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. No major issues with this one, just some picky things. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your review - I think that I might have addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)