Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Mascot/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Operation Mascot edit
Operation Mascot was the fifth attempt by the British Royal Navy's carrier air arm to attack the German battleship Tirpitz in her well-fortified base in northern Norway during mid-1944. It followed on from the successful Operation Tungsten (which I took to FA status in October last year) in early April 1944 and three raids which had to be aborted due to bad weather. While weather conditions were agreeable when this attack was launched on 17 July, Operation Mascot ended in failure as, due to the slow speed of the British strike aircraft, the Germans were able to cover Tirpitz in a smokescreen by the time the British aircraft arrived over the target. As a result, the battle was a somewhat odd encounter in which 84 British aircraft aimed at the flashes of German guns, while the German gunners were unable to see their attackers.
This article passed a good article nomination in January this year, and a military history A-class review in February. It has since been considerably expanded and copy edited, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fascinating. The article makes it sound like smoke generators were standard defensive equipment in this sort of situation. I had no idea. Maybe link to Smoke_screen#Smoke_generators, though that's not as detailed a discussion as I would have liked. Haukur (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: looks quite good to me. I only have one minor point:
- there appears to be some repetition between the Background section and the Opposing forces section . In the Background section: "Despite the decision to make further attacks on Kaafjord, many of the Home Fleet's airmen were posted to other units following Operation Tungsten. This hindered subsequent operations against German forces in Norway as the new aircrew were less experienced than the men they replaced." And then in the Opposing forces section: "Many of the Home Fleet's airmen were posted to other units following Operation Tungsten, hindering their squadrons' subsequent operations against German forces in Norway as the replacement aircrew were less experienced". I think one of these is probably unnecessary. Anyway, great work as always. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:
- I've read through and made a few minor tweaks / fixed a typo and believe this meets the criteria. Pls see my changes here [2].
- One minor nitpick though: In the lead you write "...Tirpitz was protected by a smoke screen by the time the strike force arrived." This isn't really correct though. More accurately it would have been "obscured" by the smoke not protected by it. (pedantic point I agree, pls feel free to disregard).
- Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I think that 'protected' is preferable to 'obscured', as this was the battleship's main (and very effective) defence, though 'obscured' is of course correct. The AA guns were if anything a liability in this battle given that they were the only things the great majority of the British pilots spotted. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for your copy edits and support Dank Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A pleasure, Nick. Good stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and am still walking through changes since then; I've just made one light copyediting pass so far and will return in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now reviewed all changes since ACR and aside from a couple of minor tweaks am happy with those.
- Structure and detail seem fine; I reviewed sources below and am happy to rely on Nikki's image review above.
- I have just have one query, re. "Furious did not embark any strike bombers during Operation Mascot" -- what exactly do we mean by "strike bomber", an attack plane or something else? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- Formatting looks good to me.
- I did query uboat.net at the ACR and accepted that it's used in other FAs but I also note Parsecboy's late comment there: "The only suggestion I'd make is to replace the uboat.net citations with page 350 of Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea - the full ref can be found in the Tirpitz article." -- suggest that perhaps that could be acted upon now we're at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.