Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Ironside


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Operation Ironside

 * Nominator(s): Errant (chat!)

Ironside. One of the components of Operation Bodyguard, part of my deception series. A slightly less impactful side show compared to Operation Fortitude, I got this to Good Article back in '13. At the time I felt there just wasn't much to write about Ironside... it was a sideshow for the Allies and it shows in how little impact it had on the Germans (who just carried on what they were doing regardless). However, recent work on related operations teased out more details. With another 600 words (nearly 60% more) and some additional sources/fact checking I think it's A-Class material.

At this stage in the war it was pretty clear that Western France was the Allies primary target, but Bodyguard was hugely effective in confusing Germany as to where exactly the hammer would fall and in what numbers. Ironside suffered sorely from being just a little too out of reach of Allied air cover to be feasible, but despite this German forces hung around just in case. The operation is really just a minor footnote compared to Fortitude. --Errant (chat!) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias
 * Prose
 * "Ironside formed part of Operation Bodyguard a broad strategic.." I'd put a comma after "Operation Bodyguard".
 * "Planned by London Controlling Section.." Insert "the" before London Controlling Section.
 * What is a "a second-line agent"?
 * "..beyond fighter cover.." This should clarify that it is about air cover; "fighter" alone is ambiguous.
 * "During the early war German intelligence.." This might be clearer written as "During the early stages of the war, German intelligence.." or similar.
 * Is there a suitable wikilink for German intelligence; was it just Abwehr spies, or others too?
 * "Ironside was begun on 23 May 1944 with the aim of having the threat established by May 29 and continued until June 28.." Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, stick with one date format; if you use DD MMMM YYYY, you need to also use DD MMMM, not MMMM DD. (The rest of the dates are all DD MMMM, so I guess this was a solitary slip-up.
 * In the lead, the agent's codenames are italicised, but in the Operation section they are not; be consistent.
 * "..between the 2nd and 20th of June.." should be "..between 2 and 20 June.."
 * "..because it was out of the range of fighter cover from the United Kingdom." As in the lead, make it clear that this refers to air cover.


 * Sources
 * The Macintyre book is missing a location, and links the publisher, which is inconsistent with all the other sources used.

Overall, this article looks is very good shape, the comments above are all pretty minor copy-edits. An interesting read. Harrias talk 12:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all but one of your comments in these edits. Regarding "fighter cover" can you explain what you'd see as the difference between fighter and air cover? The sources are explicit and consistent into referring to it as fighter cover. I'm happy to change it (as I don't see a functional difference) but before I do I wanted to be clear about interpretations. So in short: does "no fighter cover" == "it was not possible for fighters to fly over the invasion fleet" == "no air cover"--Errant (chat!) 13:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My only issue is that it isn't necessarily obvious that "fighter" refers to "fighter aircraft". Fighter, as demonstrated by our disambiguation page, can refer to many things. It just needs to be clarified that "fighter cover" refers to fighter aircraft, not for example, a soldier. Harrias talk 14:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeh valid point. Changed it to "air cover" in the lead and "fighter air cover", with appropriate wl, in the prose. Does that work better? --Errant (chat!) 14:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support good work, a nice article. Harrias talk 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Good to see you back, Errant, I've enjoyed your FAC work over the years.
 * "a number of": Some FAC reviewers frown on the phrase, and I tend to agree. Verbally, when you know the person you're talking to, it can be useful; in print, it tends to be ambiguous. I deleted all three instances of it, and substituted "several" in one place. Feel free to leave it as is or substitute words like "several" or "a few". - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very kind :) And likewise I've always appreciated your reviews and copyediting! Yep, you're right it's a lazy phrasing and reads better without. I replaced "several" with "six" because then it's even less coy. Cheers! --Errant (chat!) 22:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * " However, they were all captured or surrendered and subsequently used as an extensive double agent network under the control of the Twenty Committee.": Every spy Germany sent became a double agent?
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Valid point, I've rephrased it. Thanks for the support! --Errant (chat!) 10:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day again, Errant, good to see you back at Milhist ACR! Just a few minor suggestions from me. Overall, this looks fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ironside was begun on..." --> "Ironside began on..."
 * "Allied forces would land in the Bordeaux region" --> the link to "Bordeaux" here should be moved to earlier in the article's body where Bordeaux first appears
 * "Known to be under enemy control..." --> "Known to be under German control..."?
 * The message: "Send £50 quickly. I have need of a dentist". I wonder if it could be explained what was meant by this?
 * inconsistent presentation: " ten days" v "12 days"
 * "German high command did however expect a series of secondary invasions" --> "The German high command did however expect a series of secondary invasions
 * "...in July 1944, in support of Operation Ferdinand" --> the link here should be the same as the one used in the lead
 * Thanks! Done all those bits I think (bit late & tired... but I think I got it all). I couldn't spot any more numerical oddities other than the one you pulled out.. but I might be number blind :) As to Chaudoir's code... wow I can't believe I didn't talk about it in detail. Fixed that now! Thanks for the review & great suggestions. --Errant (chat!) 21:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I made a minor tweak, but overall it looks good to me, so I've added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.