Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/St Nazaire Raid

St Nazaire Raid

I have just done a rework of this article. Sadly for such an important event it was only start class and almost unreferenced. The raid is listed as FA on the Polish Wiki, so there's a challenge. As always any suggestions appreciated. I would like someone with a more nautical background to check the naval terms used. Also some opinions on the table in the footnotes. Is it required, if so is there a better way of linking it to the text. That has stumped me.

Thanks in advance. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Steve

I'll try and give this a read tomorrow Jim, but just a quicky I notice from a quick scan of it - St. Nazaire also goes by the title Saint-Nazaire, St Nazaire, and St.Nazaire (no space). Probably best to standardise it! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed --Jim Sweeney (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph of the lead states 622 men entered the harbour, but the figures for dead, captured and returned only amount to 612. Lucas Phillips only records 611 as sailing as well. I'd also suggest that if casualties are to be mentioned in the lead, it should be balanced enough to include French and German figures as well. Ranger Steve (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of Lucas Phillips, as his book is called The Greatest Raid of All, he'll make a good reference for the statement that the raid is frequently called that (it's un-sourced at present). Ranger Steve (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Casualties now include the German figure and British rectified, there is no accurate figure for French most of my sources just refer to some being killed. The The Greatest Raid of All now referenced in the legacy section. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

As is standard for articles you work on Jim, this is looking really good. My suggestions for further improvements are as follows:

• I'm a bit concerned about the heavy use which has been made of Mountbatten's book - as commander of the raiding forces at the time of the raid he's obviously not a neutral source, and many other sources seem to be available to be used.

I think most Mountbatten refs can be coved from other sources will work on it.

• "The ferocity of the fighting had sunk or imobilised all the small boats, which had been required to transport the Commandos back to England." - is a bit awkwardly phrased

changed wording

• You might want to play around with the order of the paragraphs in the Background section - I'd suggest starting with the material on the town and drydock before moving onto the German battleships

Yes done

• "At the same time headquarters Special Service Brigade, recognised the opportunity the raid would give, providing experience for other units." - also a bit awkward

I had problems with this - reworded

• No possessive apostrophe is needed in 'ML's'

Done

• It's not really accurate to say that Tirpitz "was bottled up for most of the war in a Norwegian fiord" given that the main reason she rarely put to sea was that the Hitler and the German Navy didn't want to risk her loss, and that she acted as a 'fleet in being' which forced the RN and USN to station several battleships in the North Sea when they were needed elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reworded

Thanks for the review will see about Mountbatten. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Cplakidas

Overall I think it is very good. I made some copyedits and added some links, italicized the German terms, etc., but nothing major. The one thing I think is missing to make it excellent is more info on the German reaction during the battle (which would probably entail the use of German sources, if there are any). So far, the story is told mostly from the British perspective. Constantine ✍ 07:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have just checked the German article [[1]] to see what they had on the raid but its unreferenced so not much help there. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Haven't read every word yet but made a few minor copyedits; generally this looks excellent. I see it's nominated for GA at present; A-Class and even FA are not beyond its scope by any means IMO. From a prose perspective, if going for FAC you might want to standardise the group possessive. There are various instances of headquarters, units, etc, taking "their" but others taking "its" (which is correct, if not always followed in the real world). Examples:

• The Special Operations Executive were approached to see if their agents could destroy the dock gates. They decided that the mission was beyond their capabilities...
• The fifth team also succeeded in completing all its objectives but almost half its men were killed.

If I get a chance I'll go through the article in more detail but, in any case, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)