Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Ostend Raid


 * 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 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Second Ostend Raid
An article I've been working on for a short while. Has passed GA and had a Wikiproject peer review. I believe this to be fully referenced, accurate and well written and thus a good candidate for an FA. Let me know what you think, any comments will be appreciated. Jackyd101 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Cla68 07:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Very well written, fully resourced and a good educational read! Aflumpire 09:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Well written combat account; informative and above all accessible to the non-expert. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 15:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have tweaked the section on the aftermath; for the war's duration was a bit grandiose for six months. It may also be less than accurate: Bruges appears, according to Image:Western front 1918 allied.jpg to have been liberated before Armistice Day; it would be nice to have this cleared up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your change, but I would contend that for the war's duration is factually accurate and not inappropriately dramatic given the importance of the six months in question. In addition, which part of the article do you believe to be factually inaccurate? Bruges was indeed captured by the Allies at some point during the Hundred Days Offensive but I was unable to find a date. The article does not contradict this, and I think that the only mention of the war's end is when the article states that the larger German warships were trapped in the harbour until the end of the war. This is true, since the ships were trapped no matter who actually controlled the harbour. Did you have any other concerns?--Jackyd101 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion is at least misleading; but you will note that my comment is not an oppose. Are you citing Perrett for this point also? If so, what are his words? If not, how do you know that they were trapped and not destroyed? IIRC The Germans scuttled much of their fleet in the last days of the war; and the Allies may well have sunk some as a precaution against a change of fortune.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be an oppose, but it isn't a support either and I'd like to see if I can get it there. Perrett's exact words are "Those ocean going U-boats and destroyers caught in Bruges at the time of the raid remained there for the remainder of the war." None of the books I consulted made any mention of the state of these ships at the war's conclusion. It is unlikely that they were undamaged, but that is supposition and its also worth noting that the German's did not (as far as I am aware) scuttle any of their warships until 21st June 1919, and that Bruges cannot have fallen before the very final days of the war and that the rapidity in the collapse of the Bruges defences may have taken the town by surprise. However in all honesty I have not found any information either way on this issue.--Jackyd101 06:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bruges fell about 19 October 1918. The King and Queen of the Belgians visited it on 25 October 1918. I hope this helps. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 10:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, that does help. How are the changes I have made?--Jackyd101 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked slightly. If that's all Perrott says, he could be counting the war as ending, for Bruges, either in October or November. But since I was chiefly curious, I will support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Well referenced and an accessible piece of little known WW1 history. Good work. I thought that maybe the last paragraph of the lead section might be improved a little? Perhaps it should be two paragraphs? I have added some wikilinks. LordHarris 08:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the links. How would you suggest the third paragraph of the lead be split? It could be before "Despite its failure", but why do you think this is necessary, is the lead too long as it is?--Jackyd101 08:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not think the lead was too long, right length imo. I just though that the latter part of the paragraph - despite its failure + the medals part should be a new paragraph gramatically as it was concluding the introduction, where was preceded it was a paragraph highlighting the failures. LordHarris 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll see what that looks like and move it if it works. Thankyou--Jackyd101 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.