Talk:British airborne operations in North Africa

Intro needs attention
Intro doesn't read like a summary of an article, I would expect more as to whether they were a useful contribution in North Africa, and any effects on British airborne strategy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it was fine. But I'll have a go at redoing it in a little while. Skinny87 (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

503/509 confusion
Just tagging so I can go back and fix. 2/503 was redesigned 2/509 before the invasion, but notified later. It eventually became the 509 PIB. It's one of the odder bits about the American airborne units in WWII.
 * Well, thanks for the info, although I'm not entirely sure about the changes to the lede, as the 509/503rd isn't the main focus of the article. But I welcome your alterations, as long as they're sourced. Perhaps we can discuss more when they've been done? Skinny87 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the size of the lede, hopefully in a way that still conveys the actual events. Hopefully, the parenthetical mention of the 2/503 to 2/509 designation explains why to readers why the wiki-link doesn't go to the 503 article. --Habap (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I'm not a fan of the bare-bones lede, as it's a tad too small for the size of the article, and gives too much focus, I think, on the US airborne unit; this is on the British aspect after all. However, it's really only a minor thing and I imagine it can be worked out. Do you have a cite for the change in name for the 503rd/509th? At the moment it's uncited and rather looks like it's being cited to the next citation, which doesn't cover it. Can you add a citation? Skinny87 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily inserted a web-link to the lineage of the 509th. I'll change that to a citation from Bailout Over North Africa once I retrieve it from my ground floor library.... --Habap (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the Yarborough cite, but decided to also leave in the web link. I thought about putting the book down in the bibliography for consistency, but I'm not sure that something used just once (for a minor point, at that) belongs there. I also am not real invested in whether the web links stays or not. --Habap (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citation. The web link is fine, although it will need to be formatted properly. Skinny87 (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)