Wikipedia:Peer review/Unternehmen Paula/archive1

Unternehmen Paula
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure if it can reach GA status and I'd like some opinions. The article is about a little known aerial operation that took place during the Battle of France. It is ingored by most histories unless specific to the air battle and so sources are very limited. I think I might have done enough to squeeze all the info I can out of the sources. So, those are my reasons.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You cite "Bond" and "Weal" in your citations section, but no authors by those names appears in the bibliography.
 * In the Aftermath section your wording is a bit editorial. Instead of "the French knew differently" you might use "Reported French losses suggest something less than total German victory."
 * Casualties in the fourth line of the Aftermath section is misspelled. In line two of the same section you capitalize ports. Is this proper? There's also a bit of an odd tone in that sentence. If you're going to put 'success' in quotes, it might be wise to attribute it to one of your sources or change the wording to something less editorial.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've changed the wording/fixed the port + casualties spelling/removed "the French knew differently" - though this is in the source it is still editorial so it goes - removed the last line and changed it to something else. I'll also add the two missing books. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry...found one other thing - In the lead you state that the operation was mishandled by both sides, but I didn't see anything in the main article to support that position. You might want to delete that comment, change it so that it's supported by at least one of you sources, or add some discussion in the narrative portion to provide information backing the statements.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Luftwaffe planning section it indicates than at least one KG did not get complete orders, its plans were compromised by use of the Enigma machine, which ULTRA had broken therefore the French knew about the attack. As far as the French were concerned, there is a little bit in the Battle section. Poor staff work ensured that squadrons did not hear the scramble order message via radio from the Eiffel Tower. Quite why, I don't know. Hooton does not provide any more detail than the words I have used. Is it still inappropriate? Dapi89 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I might suggest that you modify the wording to indicate that "some authorities suggest (or contend, if you want to make it clear that it's an opinion expressed by one or more of your sources) that the operation was mishandled by both sides." That would direct people further down in the article or you could directly cite from there to your sources. Hope that helps! It might also help to clarify any confusion that might be created by "However, the operation failed to achieve the strategic results desired". You could also do away with the leading however in that sentence. Just a thought. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

 * I have moved the units involved on the German side from the strengths section to their own section.
 * In the Luftwaffe plans section you say reported 1,244 aircraft on airfields in and around Paris, including 550—650 single engine aircraft but the inf box records only 120 fighters.
 * Are you sue about ULTRA my understanding is at the time they could not read signals that quick and I'm not sure they would have shared any intelligence with the French even after D-Day some Allied commanders knew nothing about it.
 * Ok - seen further down All in all, these groups totalled 240 aircraft.[30] Only 120 fighters were made available to counter German attacks. do we know why ?
 * This bit does not make sense - Fisser was killed two months later leading KG 51, inadvertently saved his life
 * The Aftermath section on over claiming is interesting. Obviously the same happened in the Battle of Britain did the Luftwaffe know they had over claimed victories and if so what did they put on place to solve the problem. Thinking here on RAF gun cameras etc.


 * Hello Jim.

1. Okay. 2. The 120 figure is the number of fighters the French deliberately committed to countering the attack they knew was coming. I don't know why there was not a full committal. 3. Definitely sure about ULTRA. At least E.R. Hooton is. He does mention it by name. 4. Need to rewrite that part about Fisser. 5. Hooton does not say what measures the Germans took re; over claiming. He doesn't even give me a clue as to whether they found out about how bad the operation was. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert
Looks pretty good. Just a couple of style comments from me:
 * the bibliography uses inconsistent styles, for instance compare Bond to Chant. Formatting them with the cite book template would fix this, but it is not necessarily preferred by all editors;
 * the year ranges in the titles in the Bibliography should have endashes per WP:DASH;
 * the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will change it. Dapi89 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)