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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fifelfoo

I mostly do footnotes:

"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"

And bibliographies

"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?

And sourcing

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). Done
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). Done
Other than those quibbles, it's a pretty good article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review.Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Steve

Just a few general comments from me:

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.

Hope it helps. Sorry if it dents the wallet though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will try and obtain a copy of Howard's memoirs Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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#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#Quotation marks. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]