Talk:Operation Goodwood (naval)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, good to catch up here at GAN again -- will try to look this over during the week and post a review by the w/e at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Toolbox checks

• One dab link: Bear Island
  • Manxruler has kindly fixed this Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• No EL issues.

Structure -- Looks straightforward/logical.

Prose/detail

• "Operating from fjords on the Norwegian coast, the battleship was capable of overwhelming the close-escort forces assigned to the Arctic convoys or breaking out into the North Atlantic." -- Not sure if "Operating from" is the best terminology as it makes it sound like the ship was particularly active, whereas it mainly lurked as a threat, didn't it? Suggest "Stationed at" instead.
  • Good point, and done (the Germans only ever planned to sortie the ship when they were really, really confident no Allied heavy units were about, so that was a bit over the top!) Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I've come to the end of the w/e without completing the review, just a note that I've read and copyedited to the end of Opposing Forces and the above is what I have so far, more later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Resuming, "if these aircraft had been unable to locate Tirpitz due to cloud they would have had to drop their scarce mines into the sea before landing" -- I gather "scarce mines" means they didn't have many of them but it reads a bit oddly to me; would "valuable mines" be supported by the source?
  • The issue was that only a small number of mines were available with the fleet (the source doesn't specify whether this was because the RN didn't have many in stock or - more likely - that the escort carriers couldn't fit many in their magazines). I've tweaked this to make things clearer, though it's a bit on the wordy side. What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks pretty good -- I think you can afford to trim it by losing "after being launched". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Other than that, all reads well to me and the level of detail seems appropriate.

Referencing -- Sources look reliable and citations/works appear suitably formatted.

Images -- All appear licensed appropriately.

Looks really good Nick, a worthy addition to your series on the FAA's abortive attempts on Tirpitz -- just let me know about that last prose point or if you have any probs with the copyediting... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments and excellent copy edits Ian. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks, passing as GA. I pretty well treated this like an A-Class review, which I assume is its next destination, so I'm sure I'll be happy to support it there too, though I'll probably let one or two others have a go at it first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot Ian. Yes, I think that this should actually have legs for FAC, so it will be off to an ACR shortly. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)