Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Deadstick

Operation Deadstick
Almost all editors with an interest in WWII will have heard about Operation Deadstick, even if you don't recognise the name. It has just had a copy edit by the GOCE and could use a peer review for any suggestions for improvement. I have enjoyed writing the article and I hope you enjoy reading it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D
This is a great article Jim, and my comments are really only about minor details:
 * It seems a bit odd to directly link British Army during the Second World War in the first sentence - this sentence should place the operation in the context of the Normandy landings rather than the much broader topic of the British Army's experiances
 * "that took place on 5 June 1944" - specify that it was during the night of 5/6 June, perhaps (and the infobox gives the date of the operation as 6 June)
 * I'd suggest reorganising the 'background' section so that it starts with the 'British Forces' sub-section (as this explains the background to the operation), followed by the 'Bridges' and 'German forces' sub-sections
 * "A further clearance of the trenches and bunkers captured a number of Germans" - 'a further clearance' is a bit awkward - could you use - 'another attack on' or similar?
 * Should the names of the British platoons (eg 'one platoon') be capitalised? (eg, 'One Platoon').
 * The Clearing the Channel Coast article doesn't seem relevant to what's covered in the 'Aftermath' section Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review I think 5 June was a typo and I have changed it to One Platoon etc all other suggestions incorporated. Thansk again Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo
I mostly do footnotes: And bibliographies And sourcing
 * "ACTOR RETURNS TO SCENE OF D-DAY LANDINGS" has a date of publication
 * Pegasus archive has an author (Editor? Archivist?). What makes this a reliable in transmitting intact "National Archives catalogue number WO 171/1239."?  Also the war diary has an author, it has a document title, etc. etc.
 * "Obituary, Colonel David Wood" has an author and a publication date
 * ps pps n-dashes are good
 * "The British Airborne Assault" incomplete bibliographic entry, it is an archive of a website at a certain point in time, originally published by MOD, part of a document series, part of a commemoration, with a last updated indicator
 * "John Howard Is Dead at 86; British Hero of D-Day Invasion" has an author, publication date, etc.
 * "Memorial Pegasus" has a publisher and corporate author "D-Day Commemoration Committee"
 * "London, England" Really?  Last time I checked the recognised state was commonly known as the United Kingdom
 * No journal articles? No monographs or chapters in edited collections solely on Deadstick?
 * You seem overly reliant on Ambrose for the narrative, broadening sourcing in the ways suggested under "And bibliographies" may help improve the article Fifelfoo (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review changes incorporated Ambrose book has much more detail than the others but where possible I used other references. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness
My comments are more general, although they are concerned with sourcing.
 * Have you considered using Hans von Luck's memoirs for a German perspective? This seems somewhat lacking in the article as it stands now.
 * I was aware of the book but have been unable to locate a copy.


 * I also have some concerns about over-reliance on Ambrose (especially given the plagiarism allegations that swirl around him), but I also understand that detailed sources might be lacking.
 * Ambrose is only used in 33 out of 97 references now


 * In the 1st Commando Bde section, is it possible to identify by unit the attacking German forces? I know the units are mentioned earlier, but a refresher here might help (or not...it's something of a preference choice). ✅
 * There are some typos scattered throughout the article (I noticed "Howard was not told the exact details of the opers(a)tion" and "told Howard that with a full load of men ammunition, assault boats and engineers' stores" within a few lines of each other). ✅
 * Other than those quibbles, it's a pretty good article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ranger Steve
Just a few general comments from me: Hope it helps. Sorry if it dents the wallet though. Ranger Steve  Talk  17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel terrible asking this, but is there a reference for the operation name? I only ask because its so unknown, and I notice there's nothing in the text to confirm it. Reference added
 * I can't recommend the Private Papers of John Howard enough and I really think this should be in the bibliography if the article goes to A class or above.
 * Similarly there are some other books specifically on this operation other than those already in the bibliography. I haven't read it, but Barber's book springs to mind.
 * Thanks will try and obtain a copy of Howard's memoirs Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dank
I see this was closed a few days ago. I started working on it before and just had a chance to finish half of it, up to Operation Deadstick. I found little to fix, and fixed what I found, mostly commas where few people use them. If you're headed to FAC, change single quotes around a word or phrase to double quotes per WP:MOS. Single quotes around a letter can stay. I don't know what "an 8 and 10 feet (2.4 and 3.0 m) wide narrow track" is; is it between 8 and 10 feet wide? Do you have any sources that support the spelling "Africa Korps"? Our article is Afrika Korps, and that's the spelling I've seen. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks the track is between 8 and 10 feet wide and spelling of Afrika Korps changed to match the article name. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)