Talk:Operation Pluto/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 11:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Review

 * I'm not sure that the coordinates provided are valid for the article, as they are incorrect (they are for somewhere in the Channel), and anyway the operation did not happen in one location.
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Link oil tankers; cable ship; Isle of Wight; petrol.
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would link Allied invasion of Normandy under a single link.
 * Already linked by Operation Overlord. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * As spool is a technical term used in other technologies, I would consider replacing it here with something like ‘drum’.
 * ✅ Sure. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * the south-east coast - 'the Kent coast' is more precise.
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * seventeen pipelines – imo '17 pipelines' is better.
 * ✅ Sure. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * North West Europe – 'north west'?
 * cf MOS:COMPASS Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * I find the rules a bit confusing myself, but should Mountbatten have his titles included, but Lloyd doesn’t?
 * Both are as they were at the time. Mountbatten is still a Vice-Admiral, not a Fleet Admiral, and still Lord Louis, his courtesy title as the son of a marquess, as he is not yet an earl. Similarly, Lloyd is not yet a baron. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. AM


 * I would consider adding '(also written Operation PLUTO)' at the start of the article, as it is often written this way.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the image the most suitable available for the top of the article, it just shows a bit of the pipe on land, decades after it was used in the war. I would replace it with a more suitable image, perhaps an old WWII picture of the part of the operation.
 * ✅ Switched images. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting article! More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Link port; oil pipeline (Pipeline transport); lubricants; geologist; currents (Ocean current ); tidal (Tide); kilopascals (Pascal (unit)); psi (Pounds per square inch)
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Move the link to petrol where it first occurs.
 * Moved. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * shipped to Middlesex - it sounds strange to mention Middlesex in this context, rather like 'shipped to Lancashire', when you mean Liverpool… . Perhaps ‘delivered to a location in the London area?
 * That's what the source says. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but Middlesex is almost never used nowadays (and wasn't then) to describe a place, except when addressing letters to post, talking about MCC the cricket club, or when referring to a historical period when London was very much smaller and Middlesex was nearly all countryside. The American author misused the term. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Very well, but our article on Middlesex says what you are saying has been true only since 1965.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)
 * a crash programme – I would probably avoid using this term when referring to tankers :)
 * ✅ Deleted "crash" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * as a backup means of supply: - semi-colon.
 * ✅ Changed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * inclement is too vague imo.
 * Have you got another word? "Rough" is the only other one that comes to mind. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rough or stormy is a better word. AM
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A. Clifford Hartley – was he known as 'Clifford' or 'Arthur Clifford'?
 * Clifford. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then A. Clifford needs to be amended to 'Clifford'. AM
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it was hoped that petroleum could be supplied in bulk. - this is clearly true, but is it what you mean to say here?


 * Yes. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious piece of information that can be removed without any loss to the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious that a switch from packaged to bulk would be made after the first few days. Why not continue to supply packaged for a week, a month (like we did in East Timor), or until a port was opened? An early switch to bulk implies a high priority on the erection of prefabricated storage. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll give you that one. AM


 * The project was given the codename Pluto – Pluto or PLUTO?
 * Pluto. There is a convention in many sources to capitalise code names, but we do not do it on Wikipedia. (WP:MILMOS) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * his command would consist of several ships – could this be more precise?
 * Don't have a more accurate number. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. AM
 * up to 60 per cent – Krammer states ‘at least 60%’ (which is not quite the same thing).
 * ✅ Changed to "60 per cent or more". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would amend thirty to '30'.
 * I think it is better this way. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. AM


 * I would include that the ship to shore operation was called Operation Tombola. What were the Tombolas, the products, the ships of the pipelines? Is there is citation for the name given?
 * ✅ Added an explanation. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Krammer says Hearne, not Hearn. Is he wrong?
 * Yes. I checked other sources, including the London Gazette (his knighthood) and the BP history.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AM


 * Ref 10 (Krammer) appears to be 445-446.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Link Arnold Krammer
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Banks, Sir Donald – the ‘Sir’ is not normally included.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Krammer needs a publisher and a location, as other references have them included.
 * It is a journal; the others are books. So no publisher or location. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * Payton-Smith – are both ISBN and OCLC needed? Imo they are not (not all your sources with ISBNs have the OCLC number as well).
 * Not all books have ISBNs or OCLCs. I always supply both when both are available. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. AM


 * A url is available for Payton-Smith - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1yS1AAAAIAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s
 * I don't provide Google book links. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. AM


 * Payton-Smith, D.J – include his first names Derek Joseph, as the source does.
 * ✅ Replaced. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I struggled to find Hartley’s 1945 article using ProQuest (I gave up in the end), but easily found it in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41362941)—is the link worth replacing?
 * ✅ I definitely got it from ProQuest. Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ellis – the second author is A E Warhurst, the ISBN is 9780898391978.
 * ✅ Added Warhurst. Your ISBN is the Battery Press edition. My copy is the 1968 HMSO one. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Carter & Kann has an OCLC number (1109671836).
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

More comments to follow, AM.


 * Link resin; jute; asphalt; galvanized steel (Hot-dip galvanization).
 * ✅ Linked.
 * Red-link Post Office cable ship Alert (CS Alert (1918)), already listed as a red link in CS Alert. The history of the ship here and here help to identify the correct ship.
 * ✅ Red-linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 14b (Hartley) should read p. 24 only.
 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * around the clock is an idiom, and should be avoided.
 * ✅ Changed to "continuously". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 15c (Krammer) doesn’t seem to be of use in verifying the text.
 * Used for the length of the cable. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * an undersea pressure—it's not clear if the pressure is from the petrol or the water, I would amend to ‘an external pressure’.
 * ✅ Changed to "underwater pressure". Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * both Siemens' and Henleys' pipe – what’s ‘Henleys’?
 * ✅ Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I haven't got access to Postan, can you confirm whether "strategically important, tactically adventurous, and, from the industrial point of view, strenuous" is someone being quoted or not?
 * It is quoting Postan. You can see it yourself at, p. 278
 * Thanks. AM


 * Please clarify capacity limitations in the UK.
 * ✅ Deleted "Because of capacity limitations in the UK"
 * The role of the steelworks at Corby doesn't seem to be mentioned by either Krammer or Hartley. Also, it’s not clear what you mean by ‘the now near-defunct Corby steel works’ – was it close to being defunct during the war?
 * ✅ Added source. Deleted "now near-defunct" Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This reduced the number of pipelines needed – are numbers available?
 * It is just a general statement. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AM

More comments to follow, AM.


 * Link yawing (Yaw (rotation)).
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The first sentence seems to need a citation.
 * ✅ Re-worded instead. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it was assumed to be about six months – Hartley (p. 28) puts it at six weeks.
 * ✅ Cofrrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Slightly off-topic, but readers might be interested to know that of the connection with Operation Fortitude (K, pp. 455-457) when an complete artificial oil dock at Dover, and that German MI never learnt about of PLUTO.
 * ✅ Added a paragraph. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Link coupling; HMS Latimer (List_of_Empire_ships_(R)); HMS Sancroft (SS Empire Baffin).
 * ✅ Linked coupling; HMS Latimer and Sancroft and Empire Ridley and EmpireBaffin are already linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AM


 * within eight of D-Day - ‘within Day 8 of D-Day’?
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Ruppenthal, p. 323): 'Known as PLUTO (for pipeline under the ocean), it provided for the laying of ten 3-inch cables from the Isle of Wight to Cherbourg, the first line to arrive on D plus 12.' This doesn’t seem to match the information in this section.
 * ✅ Added. Obviously there was no point in laying the pipeline to Cherbourg before it was captured. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The table in Ruppenthal (p. 288) states D+11 for Cherbourg. The capture date was D+8. (p. 297)
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 34 (Reppenthal p. 377)—for the date Cherbourg was captured—should read p. 427.
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * the port of Rouen - being so far inland, I would refer to it as ‘the inland port of Rouen’, or mention its considerable distance from the sea.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote at the end of the section needs to be compared with Krammer p. 462, which clearly describes the operation in terms of its success.
 * If you have a suggestion. The quote was there before I started, but I found it and added the reference. Oil is far more negative than other sources; Krammer (p. 462) has a literature review. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No suggestion, but from a British perspective, PLUTO is always portrayed/taught as an amazing success that single-handedly provided the fuel for the invasion of Normandy, and I was interested to read of the problems that arose, and that ships were used to transport oil and petrol as much as they were. I think the article provides that balance between the achievement and the issues of PLUTO. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Link mini golf (Miniature golf), unhyphenated.
 * ✅ Linked. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * After the war, more than 90% of the pipeline was recovered as salvage, and subsequently scrapped. Is this referring only to the undersea pipeline? If so, refer to Krammer p. 463, which talks about recovery of the pipeline being abandoned after several months due to costs.
 * Krammer's source sources a December 1945 document, whereas the newspaper article comes from 1949. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * Ref 49 "Pluto: Yhe Salvage Operation – 1947 to 1949", (sic), appears to a self-published website. What makes you think it is reliable?
 * Semi-official website of a veteran's organisation, with some government funding. Personal account by a participant. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * Consider adding Smith’s article https://search-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/scholarly-journals/pluto-pipe-line-under-ocean/docview/2298149745/se-2?accountid=196403.
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The link to 'Flame Barrage' does not work. If this is the correct link, the external link needs to be amended.
 * ✅ Changed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Pipe laying operations' appears to be self-published. Should it not be removed?
 * Those restrictions do not apply to external links. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. AM


 * I wouldn’t include the BBC or the Swansea Museum links, neither of which add much to the article.
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Universal Newsreel' goes to the wrong video.
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would replace the YouTube clip with this from British Pathé (it’s longer and is better quality).
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On hold
I'm putting the article on hold to allow time for us to finish the review. Many thanks for the great work you've done on it. let me know if you think a more detailed map of wartime England's pipelines could be of use, I should be able to fix one. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * All points addressed. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * a few remaining issues to discuss in the Background section, otherwise we're good. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Passing
Passing now, congratulations. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)