Talk:Operation Slapstick/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * I have been bold and added a Prelude section as a 2nd level heading per WP:MILMOS/C IOT breakup the Background section. If you don't like it or find it unhelpful please simply revert.
 * No seems fine.
 * This sentence might be reworked a little: "It had spearheaded the German invasion in the west in 1940, and fought in the battle for Greece, the battle for Crete and in the Soviet Union." Specifically the phrases "battle for Greece, the battle for Crete" seem a little strange. Maybe try: "It had spearheaded the German invasion in the west in 1940, and fought in Greece, Crete and the Soviet Union." Changed ✅
 * "From here, the airborne division...", might work better as "From there, the airborne division..." Changed ✅
 * Perhaps consider offsetting images, left and right per WP:PICTURE.
 * I prefer them aligned right, and have seen edit wars develop over placement. So will leave them if thats all right. ✅
 * The infobox is lacking quite a bit of detail such as strength, units and casualties. Can these be added?
 * More detail added, the divisions strength after the losses in Sicily is not known. ✅
 * The following reference lacks location of publishing in the References section:
 * Morrison, Samuel Eliot (2001). History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, January 1943 – June 1944. Volume 9 of History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252070399. Yes amazing how often that crops up even after checking time after time ✅
 * Is there really a need to have the co-ordinates listed twice - once in the infobox and once in the title? I'm not sure of any policy which says you mustn't do this, but IMO it is a little unneccessary. You might consider removing it from the infobox and just leaving it in the title. This can be achieved by removing the "inline" parametre in the mark up (suggestion only). Only one now ✅
 * An example of where I have done this is Battle of Pakchon, so if you decide to do this you can have a look at the mark up used there (although of course there are a number of different ways you might achieve this).
 * More detailed review to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals a minor error with reference consolidation:
 * "Blumenson 1969, p.114" (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * "blum114" (Multiple references are using the same name) ✅
 * Disambiguations: No dabs (no action required).
 * Linkrot: External links all check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images all lack alt text, however its not a requirement of GA so its up to you if you would like to add it (no action required).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is generally good, although a little repetitive in places. For instance these two sentences both start with the same phrase: "The mission, one of three landings during the Allied invasion of Italy, was undertaken by the British 1st Airborne Division in September 1943. The mission was planned at short notice following an offer by the Italian government to open the ports of Taranto and Brindisi on the heel of Italy to the Allies." Specifically "the mission". Maybe reword? ✅
 * Grammer here: "The only German force in the area was elements of the 1st Parachute Division...". This might work better as "The only German forces in the area were elements of the 1st Parachute Division..."✅
 * "landed in Calabria in Operation Baytown to seize..." might work better as "landed in Calabria during Operation Baytown to seize..." ✅
 * "It was hoped that the invasion would persuade..." hoped by whom? Perhaps consider rewording as: "The Allies hoped that the invasion would persuade..."✅
 * More grammer here: "German forces away from the same-day main Allied landings at Salerno...". Not sure about this, think it might work better as: "German forces away from the main Allied landings at Salerno on the same-day ..." ✅
 * "In Italy, German Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, unaware of what was happening in Germany, had been building up German strength." This sentence is a little repetitive (German, Germany and German in the same sentence). Perhaps consider rewording as such: "In Italy, German Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, unaware of what was happening in Germany, had been building up the strength of his forces."✅
 * "It was hoped the division would face only minimum opposition and be able to overcome any resistance with the limited naval support available, as Taranto was outside the range of Allied fighter aircraft based in Sicily." This might work better as "The British believed that the division would face only minimal opposition and would be able to overcome any resistance with the limited naval support available, as Taranto was outside the range of Allied fighter aircraft based in Sicily." Not sure "it was hoped" is the right way of wording this thats all.✅
 * Not sure about the presentation of units here: "the 2nd and 4th Parachute...", move work better as "the 2nd and 4th Parachute Brigades."✅
 * Missing word here "informed the German forces had already departed." Perhaps should be "informed that the German forces had already departed." ✅
 * "town of Castellaneta, Major-General Hopkinson was hit by a burst...". Specifically "Major-General Hopkinson" should just be "Hopkinson" at second mention per WP:SURNAME.✅
 * Not sure what you are trying to say here: "Within 48 hours after they had landed at Taranto, the airborne division reached..." Perhaps: "Within 48 hours of landing at Taranto, the airborne division reached..." ✅
 * Overlinking of Royal Air Force.
 * "The headquarters V Corps" would work better as "The V Corps headquarters".✅
 * Consider wikilinking terms like battalion and division at first instance, as it will provide readers that are unfamiliar with such organisations with an understanding of their size etc.✅
 * "without reference to Field-Marshal Kesselring's headquarters", specifically "Field-Marshal Kesselring's" should just be "Kesselring's" per WP:SURNAME.✅


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some inconsistency in the short citiations. By an large you use the "Author, date and page" system (e.g. "Blumenson 1969, p.82"), however in a couple of places you haven't included the date. Examples include "Cole, pp.55–56" and "Musciano, p.166". Probably should add the date to these.✅
 * Inconsistent presentation of ISBNs in references section. In places you use dashes (e.g. 0-85045-573-1) and in other you dont (0710207182). AFAIK either is correct, you just need to chose a style and applying it through out.✅


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * You list the commanders of the German and British forces in the infobox and allude to them throughout the text, however it isn't clearly spelt out IMO. Indeed Heidrich is only introduced in the aftermath. I would consider explicitly stating who the commanders were in the prelude (in the German forces and British forces sections respectively). ✅


 * 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':
 * All images appear to be PD and seem appropriate.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this is a good article, just a few issues with prose to be fixed up or discussed before it can be promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well WOW thanks once again its always good for another pair of eyes to check over. All done I believe. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed. Happy to pass for GA, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)