Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Copperhead/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015.

Operation Copperhead

 * Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So, after a bit of a hiatus, I'm back into the MILHIST articles... This is an A-Class article from a couple of years ago, that has only needed minor improvements since (It's complete & stable). It's one of my favourite WW2 deception stories, completely off the wall and probably had limited use - but it has the sort of drama and panache you expect of wartime secret ops! Errant (chat!) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweak (good idea) & support :) --Errant (chat!) 07:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest scaling up the map size
 * File:Clifton_James001.jpg: can you explain why we believe this is a UK government work, if the author is unknown? The source given doesn't suggest that
 * File:Bernard_Law_Montgomery.jpg: source link is dead, file is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've scaled up the map & replaced the Montgomery image with a better one. Hunting for a better source for the other now. --Errant (chat!) 11:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * sadly I can't source that image for now! I've replaced it with the map image, which is consistent with the other articles I've written in this series :) Thanks for the review! --Errant (chat!) 21:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support - Very well written. From the bibliography, refs 1 & 3 (National Archives & Howard) are not used - place in further reading. I'm not seeing much else to complain about from a single read through. Re comprehensiveness, the Polish article is FA and about the same size. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, the article would benefit greatly if a licence was found for Clifton_James001.jpg Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Very happy to say!! I've not be able to source that image (though I would be shocked if it wasn't Crown Copyright I simply can't find it at the National Archives) I HAVE managed to find another pic that is PD-UK :D Now added to article. --Errant (chat!) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The resemblance is remarkable, and the addition bring the article further to life. Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 *  Comment  - taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 *  A second look-alike was found, but soon afterwards was injured in an accident. - gosh, leaves me curious...any further info?


 * Can we add who Joshua Levine was as a descriptor? Otherwise there is nothing to indicate why we should value his opinion....


 * "high-pressure" - dunno that I like this adjective (a bit informal?)...sorta prefer "stressful" or "highly stressful"

Support Otherwise, reads fine and looks on-target for comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) I wish! Very little else to add; I've clarified that it was a leg and a motorbike accident, but sources are coy on further information
 * 2) Done
 * 3) Reworked with stressful.

Thanks for the review! --Errant (chat!) 13:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Interesting little article. Sorry, but I couldn't find anything to criticise. I tried! I added a link, and I could move some commas or dashes around, but there's nothing wrong with it as it is. It's engaging, it's objective, it's comprehensive (as far as I can tell—it doesn't leave me as a reader with unanswered questions)... My curiosity was peaked by the British government allowing the publication of the book, though. Do we know if it went to the censor and was approved or if it just slipped through? Ten years after the event is quite soon for the censor to be approving the publication of war secrets, but then there were a lot of books by ex-servicemen being published at around that time. If you had any details I'd be curious, but it's not necessary. Also, my preference would be to add in a citation for the two works in the "further reading " section and incorporate them into the bibliography, but that's just me; different editors like it different ways. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry :D I've removed one of the further reading because, although Howard is an excellent book, it doesn't add much to make it worth citing. And it's not really specific enough to be further reading - I think it was a hangover from not using it in the article. As to the other link: I don't have a copy of the source any more so I am not really sure what to do about it. BUT it's the primary source for the operation so would be interesting to anyone who likes that sort of thing. Regarding to book; I'll dig around and see if I can pull anything else out. But it's mostly a footnote in the source material. No real commentary on its publication, I agree it is dangling something in front of the reader.. will dig around. Thanks for the review again! --Errant (chat!) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.