Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/D-Day naval deceptions


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

D-Day naval deceptions

 * Nominator(s): Errant (chat!)

A small but, I feel, complete article about the three tactical naval military deceptions employed on the eve of Operation Neptune. It recently passed GAR and I am nominating it for A-Class review to get some more feedback (and with an eye on FAR, though I know it is a little short). I recently started the mammoth task of brining all the Operation Bodyguard related articles to at least GA standard, and this is the first to go through the process. (a prose ce from someone would be nice, as I am the only major author so far) Errant (chat!) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments - Interesting work. Some comments:

Infobox: Lead: Background: Glimmer and Taxable: Big Drum: Impact: Bibliography: That's all I've got at this stage. Zawed (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ops 'B' is mentioned in "Planned by" field but not in main body of article. Likewise RNR - perhaps add a line to the Glimmer and Taxable section, assuming it is supported by the refs, stating that the HDMLs involved were crewed by RNR personnel.
 * Will figure out how best to present this :) --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Date refers to 5 June, but times are for 6 June.
 * Not sure how to fix this. Obviously the boats left England on 5th, but conducted the operation on the 6th. What's the convention here? --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just have the dates. Zawed (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Link Normandy on its first mention in the lead; the other areas that were the location of dummy fleets are linked. I would also suggest linking chaff as I think there will be readers that don't know what it is. &#10004;
 * "were successful, due..." I think the comma should be deleted. &#10004;
 * 2nd para - link Normandy (the place). &#10004;
 * London Controlling Section - used twice before changing to the abbreviation (which has no antecedence). &#10004;
 * When was the decision made to initiate Taxable and Glimmer? Later in the article, there is reference to training of the squadrons in May.
 * Not sure. I guess I could get the planning documents from the archive and find out. But there is no real discussion in the source. --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Link Cap d'Antifer and Royal Air Force &#10004;
 * are the boats of the 1st para of this section the ships of the 3rd para?
 * Tweaked the wording to hopefully clarify this --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A word is missing here: "merge in seamlessly avoid" &#10004;
 * "the larger of the two...": "the larger of the two "operations"? &#10004;
 * "with an expanded crew of up to 14" - needs to make clear this is referring to each bomber, not the squadron. &#10004;
 * "available, instead each bomber carried a second pilot who rotated flying." Needs rephrasing; perhaps the comma should be a full sentence, and refer to rotating flying duties. &#10004;
 * "the small ships" as opposed to the big ships? Suggest deleting "small". &#10004;
 * No aircraft losses?
 * I'll check --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "naval deceptions, however was not supported by chaff-dropping bombers". I find the comma and "however" awkward and suggest rephrasing.  Perhaps: "naval deceptions but did not involve the RAF." &#10004;
 * "the western most portion of the fleet". I suggest amending this to read "invasion fleet". &#10004;
 * What happened to the fleet of HDMLs? Did they all return safely like the other operations? &#10004;
 * Interesting question, I'll double check! --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to have, since the other fleets are mentioned as returning safely. Zawed (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added some info to note they made it back. --Errant (chat!) 10:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "quite ineffective, very little.." Seems like there is a word missing in the middle of that quote. &#10004;
 * "bomber squadrons indicating...": indicated? &#10004;
 * Some refs include pages numbers eg. Barbier, p. 268 &#10004;
 * Great thanks! I've addressed a lot of these points and will come back later with the extra info you suggested (if its in the sources). Some comments/queries in line. --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No probs. Your changes look good - but I have just noticed most of the refs don't have publishing location. Zawed (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Locations added, I don't see anything in the sources as to whether all the bombers made it back, nor when it was initiated (other than the dates they started training). --Errant (chat!) 10:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been looking over your changes to this article as a result of my comments and they look good. One thing I had overlooked (sorry) is an explicit start date for Glimmer/Taxable in the main body of the article (to support the use of 5 June in the infobox).  I've gotten carried away and have amended the opening sentence of the 4th paragraph of the "Glimmer and Taxable" but please check that my changes are supported by the references.  If not, you may want to revise my change (or maybe move it elsewhere in the article).  Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks perfect to me :) thanks!! --Errant (chat!) 22:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding my support now. Zawed (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. This a relatively short, but interesting and well-written article. I had a good read through, but I'm afraid I couldn't find anything to criticise! Nice work, Tom, keep the articles coming. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers Harry! --Errant (chat!) 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Most images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action required).
 * One duplicate link that need to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
 * Newhaven
 * "Allied command decided that this would be too noisy...", I'm assuming "noisy" is not used here in its literal sense. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean? (suggestion only)
 * "Taxable, the larger of the two operations, was carried out by eighteen small boats..." should be "18" per WP:MOSNUM
 * Beevor, Anthony (2009). The Battle for Normandy. Penguin UK. ISBN 0141959266 needs place of publishing.
 * Otherwise excellent. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I've addressed the points you raised :) --Errant (chat!) 06:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.