Talk:Operation Tungsten/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals a few errors with reference consolidation:
  • Bishop (2012), p. 299 (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • Bishop_299 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • Zetterling_268 (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • All fixed now, I think Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: external links all check out [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: Images all have alt text [5] (no action req'd).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a few duplicate links:
  • Kaafjord
  • Royal Air Force
  • Scapa Flow
    • All now fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Language here seems a little terse: "Tirpitz arrived in Norway in January 1942 and operated from bases in fjords." Maybe "...Tirpitz arrived in Norway in January 1942 and operated from bases located in fjords in the north of the country. (not sure if I'm correct on the detail so pls substitute as req'd).
    • Good point - she seems to have initially moved around a fair bit between central and northern Norway. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Prose here seems a little awkward: " Following this engagement Royal Air Force and Soviet Air Forces bombers attempted to strike...". Consider if something like this would work better: " Following this engagement bombers from the Royal Air Force and Soviet Air Forces attempted to strike..."
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tirpitz should be wikilinked at first use in the body of the article (as well as the lead).
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "It was feared that the battleship could potentially..." the word "that" is redundant here (suggestion only).
  • "These shortages also meant that the Germans...", again redundant "that" (suggestion only).
    • Both done Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "...gathered from intercepted radio transmissions and field agents indicated that the Germans...", redundant "that" (suggestion only).
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There are other examples of redundant "that"s, but I wont list them. This is probably a question of personal style anyway and I'm not insisting on them being removed, up to you to decide if you wish to keep them.
    • I've trimmed a few more Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Should the bomb sizes be converted into kgs for readers unfamiliar with imperial measurements (using the {{convert}}) template) For instance "1,600-pound bombs"...?
    • I don't think that the weights used to name bombs are exactly the weight of the weapon, especially as they're normally then fitted with different combinations of fins, warheads, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Check the placement of the commons template, my understanding of the template documentation at Template:Commons_category is that the template should not be place "in a section containing columns without floating left..." and that it should be in the External links section or "at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists". As such I recommend moving it to the "works consulted" sub section.
    • Good idea: done Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • consider adding it to the Category:Conflicts in 1944 per WP:MILMOS.
    • Added Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR.
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of isbns in the references section, some use hyphens and others don't.
    • All hyphens removed Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • Level of coverage broadly seems appropriate.
  • Would it be beneficial to add major units from both sides to the infobox?
    • I can't find any sources on the German command structure, and given that only a small proportion of the British force (the 120-odd aircraft) actually ever engaged the Germans, it would be a bit confusing to add the Home Fleet here Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images are all PD and / or licensed and seem appropriate to the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

This is a very interesting and well written article, only a couple of points above (mostly minor) to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to review this. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to. Changes look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)