Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Convoy Faith

< 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.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convoy Faith

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

This article covers one of the last successful German air attacks during the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II. It passed a GA review last January, but I didn't take it further at the time. I've since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it now meets the A class criteria. To pre-empt a couple of questions I'm sure will be asked: 1) the article only cites a small number of sources as not much has been written about this battle. I've looked everywhere for further coverage, but without success 2) unfortunately none of these sources explain why the convoy was called 'Faith'. I presume that the reason was that it was an unusual one-off convoy from Scotland to West Africa, so it didn't fit into the regular convoy codes. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding more comments later, but one question first – I realize that there's a lack of sources, but is there any way of adding more information on WG Busk-Wood? Could there be a mention of where he gained some experience as a captain? dci | TALK 14:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is; he commanded an ocean liner prior to the war - I've added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images check out licence wise. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Nice succinct article in the tradition of your earlier Black Friday (1945), Nick. Prose (bar some minor things I copyedited), structure, detail, referencing, and supporting materials all check out -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the Prelude section, the reason that the article discusses movement of two troopships from Scotland, when the entire focus is on moving the division from West Africa to India, is a little unclear. Until half way through the article I did not understand why we were discussing ships originating from Scotland. Recommend you recast the introduction to emphasise the repositioning of troopships to support movement of divisions, instead of the division move itself. Other changes might be needed lower down. Otherwise, a good article, well referenced, though a note might usefully explain exactly what you did above - why the convoy does not appear to have had a code. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this again, I personally would switch the 'Background' and 'Prelude' sections, on the basis that the convoy itself is the subject of the article. If the article was titled something like 'German air attacks on date XYZ' the current order would make sense. Also consider retitling 'Background' and 'Prelude' something like 'German oceanic air attacks' and 'Troop move to India' which would better describe the contents. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, in the absence of KG 40, we do have Fliegerführer Atlantik. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those comments; I'll follow up on them over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that these comments are now addressed. I haven't renamed the first two sections, but I have moved their content around and added some extra background, so they should make more sense. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: looks good. I made a couple of minor tweaks. I have the following comments, but am happy that it meets the requirements for A-class:
    • do we know where the German aircraft were based out of? I imagine somewhere in France, but if you know the base, it might be added to the background maybe;
    • "it was believed that submarines posed the main threat..." To butcher a Churchill quote, in this context submarines were "gallant and noble" Allied craft which sank German ships, while U-boats were "dastardly villians" who sank Allied ships. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that I wonder if "submarines" here should be changed to "U-boats", obviously avoiding the POV of Churchill's statement;
      • I prefer to use 'submarine' in this context as they weren't very different to the Allied boats, and 'U-boat' has developed something of a mythology around it (though I have to confess to using the terms interchangeably when developing Operation Teardrop to FA level a few years ago... - at least it added some extra variety to the prose!) Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, no worries. Sir Winston might hold it against you but I won't. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one of the escorting destroyers at 0:45 am". This was on 12 July? It might pay to add the date here, just to clarify;
    • "and she was abandoned at 10:40 pm". On 11 July? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're correct on both counts; fixed. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is there anything relevant in the official Canadian histories? No Higher Hope might be the relevant volume for this affair.
    • Good point, I'll check today. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Places of publication need nations for everyplace except major cities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done (I think that people will assume that the 'Oxford' in the reference is the one in the UK given that it's a well-known centre of academic and publishing activities). Thanks for your comments - I hope to be able to fully address the first one later today. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
    • Images all have Alt Text [3] (no action required).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • The images used are all seem to be PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
    • Should "WG Busk-Wood" be "W.G. Busk-Wood"?
    • This sentence seems a little awkward to me: "The decision to use a similar route to other convoys despite Convoy Faith's small escort made it an attractive target." Would something like this work better: "The decision to use a similar route to that used by previous convoys despite Convoy Faith's small escort made it an attractive target..."? (suggestion only) Anotherclown (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point - I've heavily tweaked this sentence. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem at all, I found the article to be well-written and interesting and in my opinion ticks all the ACR criteria. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2012 (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/Convoy_Faith&oldid=1141873596"