Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Black Friday (1945)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Promoted EyeSerenetalk 12:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (1945)

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)
Toolbox

I've re-written and greatly expanded this article over the last week (with Dapi89 and Ian Rose also adding improvements) and think that it may now meet the A class criteria. Any comments or suggestions for further improvements would, of course, be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support
    • Checked for dabs, broken external links, and alt text -- fixed one dab and the rest were fine, so no action required.
    • All images appear appropriately licensed.
    • My improvements to this were very minor, just a light copyedit and a few suggestions following my B-Class assessment, when I reviewed in depth.
    • I've checked all subsequent edits and apart from a couple of minor tweaks on my part, all appear fine.
    • Prose, structure, detail, citations/references, and supporting materials therefore all look good to me -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - article looks very good, and just a quick comment from me for now. Up to you whether you want to add it in or not, but Milson was awarded a Bar to his Distinguished Service Order for his part in the assault on the Fjord, the citation of which praised his "skill, courage and devotion to duty of a high order" during the "brilliantly executed operation". See: "No. 37175". The London Gazette (Supplement). 13 July 1945. p. 3619.. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's a great find - I've just added it to the article. Thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very welcome. :) Not sure if there were any other awards for the opperation, though ... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've added some minor bibliographic details but other than that I couldn't find anything to fault with the article. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments I was tempted to say something about hyphenation, but this isn't AmEng so I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two 'outriders' ahead": Not taking a position, since single quotes are common in BritEng, but WP:MOSQUOTE prefers double quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this is OK so have left it
      • As an update, Christina Goulter (who is a New Zealander who was working in the UK when her book on Coastal Command was published) uses 'outriders'. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood that there are good arguments both for and against in BritEng. See WP:MOSQUOTE for some pretty good arguments against. Double quote marks would be needed at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4.25": See WP:MOSTIME. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed
  • German for "squadron" is "Staffel", plural "Staffeln". Probably better just to say "squadrons". - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to just 'Squadrons' as suggested. I read a book last year on the historiography of WWII which complained about English-language writers unnecessarily using German names for German military units and ranks which had clear direct English-language translations. I've left 'Leutnant' though as it appears to translate to 'Second Lieutenant' so something is lost in the translation.
  • The first two sentences could probably do a better job of explaining what happened. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heavily tweaked the first paragraph - what do you think?
      • That's easier for me to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited Support. "Long-range" would be the right spelling in AmEng, and some of the hyphenation looks wrong, but I'm out of my element in BritEng. But I found very little to complain about, so I can offer some support, for what it's worth. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's the British English spelling - 'long-range' looks wrong to this Aussie! Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Actually I just realized I don't know if this is AusEng or BritEng. Shows what I know. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking as an Aussie, in practice I don't think I've ever noticed much difference. Anyone else...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the differences are pretty marginal, and probably mainly relates to Australian words which would be considered gibberish in the UK... Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's my understanding also. In terms of grammar, spelling, etc. it is essentially the same (at least formally). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, that's helpful, I'll take AusEng as synonymous with BritEng then. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Thought I'd return the favour, so here are my thoughts on this:

  • It seems to me that the term 'Black Friday' should be at the beginning of the lede, as per other articles. At the moment, you have to go down to the bottom of the first paragraph of the lede to find out why it was called that. It's not a major sticking point, but I imagine there's some wretched guideline saying it should be first. I can see why you've done it this way, but it is a tad confusing.
    • Done
  • I would wikilink the first use of 'Wing', and possibly add some explanation that the three/four squadrons were grouped together to form a Wing, as it might confuse a reader unfamiliar with military aviation terms.
    • Done
  • Do we know why Z33 ran aground, at all?
    • I'm afraid not. It would have been a navigation error of some sort as no source says that she was attacked.
  • Are there any details of the flak vessels with Z33? If so, they could be added to the end of the paragraph where Z33 is first introduced.
    • Not really - as explained in note 1, each source gives different figures for the ships accompanying Z33 and it's unclear what they were/
  • 'Milson had reservations about making what was likely to be a costly attack, particularly given that the war was clearly coming to an end.' - Did anything come of these reservations? Was he told to be quiet, for example, or reprimanded?
    • The source says that he followed his orders to attack the ship as best as he could despite his concerns - I've tweaked the text to include it

It's a good article, with only a few minor quibbles that I can see, and I'm happy to support. Skinny87 (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Black_Friday_(1945)&oldid=784864819"