Talk:British airborne operations in North Africa
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Skinny87 in topic 503/509 confusion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British airborne operations in North Africa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | British airborne operations in North Africa has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 2, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during one of several British airborne operations in North Africa, an officer knocked unconscious was heard to ask a waiter for fish? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Intro needs attention edit
Intro doesn't read like a summary of an article, I would expect more as to whether they were a useful contribution in North Africa, and any effects on British airborne strategy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
503/509 confusion edit
Just tagging so I can go back and fix. 2/503 was redesigned 2/509 before the invasion, but notified later. It eventually became the 509 PIB. It's one of the odder bits about the American airborne units in WWII.
- Well, thanks for the info, although I'm not entirely sure about the changes to the lede, as the 509/503rd isn't the main focus of the article. But I welcome your alterations, as long as they're sourced. Perhaps we can discuss more when they've been done? Skinny87 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've reduced the size of the lede, hopefully in a way that still conveys the actual events. Hopefully, the parenthetical mention of the 2/503 to 2/509 designation explains why to readers why the wiki-link doesn't go to the 503 article. --Habap (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm not a fan of the bare-bones lede, as it's a tad too small for the size of the article, and gives too much focus, I think, on the US airborne unit; this is on the British aspect after all. However, it's really only a minor thing and I imagine it can be worked out. Do you have a cite for the change in name for the 503rd/509th? At the moment it's uncited and rather looks like it's being cited to the next citation, which doesn't cover it. Can you add a citation? Skinny87 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've temporarily inserted a web-link to the lineage of the 509th. I'll change that to a citation from Bailout Over North Africa once I retrieve it from my ground floor library.... --Habap (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I added the Yarborough cite, but decided to also leave in the web link. I thought about putting the book down in the bibliography for consistency, but I'm not sure that something used just once (for a minor point, at that) belongs there. I also am not real invested in whether the web links stays or not. --Habap (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've temporarily inserted a web-link to the lineage of the 509th. I'll change that to a citation from Bailout Over North Africa once I retrieve it from my ground floor library.... --Habap (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have to admit I'm not a fan of the bare-bones lede, as it's a tad too small for the size of the article, and gives too much focus, I think, on the US airborne unit; this is on the British aspect after all. However, it's really only a minor thing and I imagine it can be worked out. Do you have a cite for the change in name for the 503rd/509th? At the moment it's uncited and rather looks like it's being cited to the next citation, which doesn't cover it. Can you add a citation? Skinny87 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've reduced the size of the lede, hopefully in a way that still conveys the actual events. Hopefully, the parenthetical mention of the 2/503 to 2/509 designation explains why to readers why the wiki-link doesn't go to the 503 article. --Habap (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for the info, although I'm not entirely sure about the changes to the lede, as the 509/503rd isn't the main focus of the article. But I welcome your alterations, as long as they're sourced. Perhaps we can discuss more when they've been done? Skinny87 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)