Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Obviate

< 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 by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Obviate edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Obviate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


This is a return after a two year hiatus to my series on Allied air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. It covers an attack on the warship by the Royal Air Force's two elite heavy bomber squadrons which failed at the last minute due to clouds suddenly covering the battleship. This bad luck led to many of the bombers making multiple passes over the target area before dropping their scarce and expensive Tallboy bombs on where they thought Tirpitz probably was. Not surprisingly, none of the bombs struck their target, but the aircrews' success in scoring several near misses demonstrated the skills which sent Tirpitz to her end in an almost identical attack a few weeks later.

This article passed a GA nomination in December 2018, and has been further improved. I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now also met. Once it passes A-class, I intended to further develop it for a FAC, and so would appreciate any comments other editors may have on its readiness for this as well. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - images are correctly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Nick, fascinating topic. I grew up reading Frederick E. Smith's 633 Squadron books, so I found this quite interesting. I have a few minor comments/queries: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • no duplicate links; no dabs; no issues with external links (no action required)
  • referencing looks sufficient to me (no action required)
  • Weather conditions were favourable --> "Weather conditions were favourable for the attackers"?
  • Junge only appears to be mentioned in the infobox. What was his role? Perhaps this should be mentioned in the body of the article?
    • The sources don't mention him doing anything in this engagement. He left the ship shortly afterwards. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • specified that the battleship was to be attacked by 36 Lancasters: is this inconsistent with the lead 38 British bombers?
    • No sources explain why more than the specified number of Lancasters were dispatched. I suspect that the flyable reserve aircraft which were sent to Scotland were used in the mission to augment the chances of success (especially as they had been modified for the mission, bombed up and their crews briefed). Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was directed position Tirpitz at a location...: typo?
    • The word "to" was missing - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • surrounded by torpedo nets.[28][29][17]: suggest placing the refs in numerical order
  • in the Works consulted section, the hyphenation of the isbns is slightly inconsistent
    • I've standardised on no hyphens. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Barracuda dive bombers?
  • inconsistent spelling, compare "Johnnie Walker" with "Jonnie Walker"
    • Johnnie Walker is correct - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • would control their units during the operation --> "would control their units in the air during the operation"?
  • this involved violating Sweden's neutrality: were there any consequences for this?
    • The sources don't mention any, and the fact that the aircrew were repatriated without any problems being noted anywhere suggest not. By this stage of the war Sweden was openly favouring the Allies. Thanks a lot for these comments, and sorry for the slow response. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Wonderful read. I made a few minor WS and GR touchups. Good to go on prose. Ping me when it's time to do Catechism. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem edit

Everything checks out OK. Just a few comments below. Given the pedigree of the nom I haven't done any spotchecks.

Technical checks (ref formatting etc) all good.

Bibliography

  • Why does the Bennett publication include chapter and page references when Bennett is the author. Presumably it's a collection with contributions from different authors and edited by Bennett? Not an issue, just curious;
    • Yes, that's correct. The book is a collection of 1940s-era British military reports on attacks on the Tirpitz. Bennett edited it and wrote an introduction providing a good summary of the raids. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to its Worldcat entry, Sink the Tirpitz 1942-44 : the RAF and Fleet Air Arm duel with Germany's mighty battleship was co-authored by Angus Konstam and Jim Laurier.
    • Worldcat is wrong here - Laurier is credited as the illustrator in the book, with Konstam being the author. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness

  • Not sure if Sinking the Beast: The RAF 1944 Lancaster Raids Against Tirpitz can add anything. It has a chapter on Operation Obviate which can be partially previewed on GBooks (though without page numbers), which mentions Junge a few times and that Swedish flak opened fire on the bombers (both mentioned elsewhere in this review).
    • That does look handy - I'll order a copy and draw on it ahead of FAC (the lack of page numbers make the Google books version problematic). Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Factotem (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM edit

I went through the article with a fine tooth comb and made a few minor c/e tweaks. Found nothing that would be an obstacle to my support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pendright edit

An interesting story, well told. Hopefully, the comments that follow will help make a good article better. Pendright (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • After a period of planning and preparations, 38 British bombers and a film aircraft departed bases in northern Scotland during the early hours of 29 October.
Consider adding from or from the betweem departed and bases!
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the presence of clouds over Tromsø, Tirpitz survived the raid with only light damage.
Consider the word slight over light, indicates degree.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The battleship was not directly hit, but suffered light damage from a bomb which exploded in the water.
  • Ditto above
  • Consider adding nearby, close, or not far away in the water.
  • Tweaked to address both the above points. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Backgroud:

  • From March 1943 Tirptiz was based at Kaafjord in the far north of Norway.
Consider a comma ater 1943, introductory phrase.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 3 April 1944 aircraft flying from Royal Navy aircraft carriers attacked Tirpitz during Operation Tungsten and inflicted further damage.
Ditto the above
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... "Johnnie Walker" mines, and was mounted from Yagodnik in the Soviet Union.
Italics are used for emphasis - per the MOS.
They're used her as this wasn't the formal name of the mine, but a nick-name. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude:

  • A meeting involving Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, the commander of the German Navy, was held in Berlin on 23 September to discuss ...
Is Berlin worthy of a link?
That would be overlinking in this context, I think (as all readers should know what Berlin is) Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intelligence gained by photo reconnaissance, signals intelligence and Norwegian agents confirmed to the Allies that Tirpitz had been badly damaged during Operation Paravane.
Properly, the definte article the should begin the sentence.
Good point - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after reaching Håkøya 600 sailors, mostly members of her engine room crew, were removed from the ship.
Consider removing the comma after sailors and placing it after Håkøya.
I don't think that's an improvement Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to these reports, the British aircraft carrier HMS Implacable was sortied from the ...
Consided linking sortied.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The battleship departed Kaafjord at 12 pm local time on 15 October under the escort of a large number of warships.
Local time would seem to be implied.
Yes, but I noted it here as the article (unfortunately) uses a few different time zones due to quirks in the sources, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and returned to base despite being damaged by anti-aircraft guns. Shortly afterwards Implacable's Fairey Firefly aircraft ... reconnoitred
Consider adding its or the before base.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly afterwards Implacable's Fairey Firefly aircraft reconnoitred the Tromsø area,
Reconnoitered is misspelled. Link, if possibe!
It looks OK to me? I think it's a reasonably common term, so a link isn't needed. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In progress - Pendright (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German:

  • None of the large number of smoke generators and anti-aircraft guns which had protected the battleship against air attack at Kaafjord were initially available, as they had not yet been shipped south.
  • Consider this: None of the large number of smoke generators and anti-aircraft guns, which had protected the battleship against air attack at Kaafjord, were initially available because they had not yet been shipped south.
  • That sentence has been bugging me since I wrote it - that helps, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Departure:

  • On 26 October Bomber Command advised the Admiralty that Operation Obviate would commence as soon as weather conditions permitted after the night of 27 October.
  • Consder a comma after October, introductory.
  • Was the Admiralty advised or informed?
  • In the evening of 27 October the aircrew selected for Operation Obviate were briefed on the plan, and told they would proceed to the forward airfields the next morning.
Consider a comma after October, introductory
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over Tromsø:

  • Once this was complete, they proceeded to Tromsø, with the Lancasters climbing further to their bombing heights of between 13,000 feet (4,000 m) and 16,000 feet (4,900 m).
Consider changing complete to completed and remove the comma after complete.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Pendright (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these comments. I think that I've now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and good luck to you at the FAR. BTW, thanks for your invitation (nomination statement) to other editors to contribute any comments they may have. Admittedly, it’s why I jumped into the fray. Have a good day! Pendright (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Picky driveby comment: I asked GOCE about the use of a comma after an introductory statement that fixes the time ("On <date>..."). It appears to be optional, with the main concern being the pacing of the prose in the sentence (OK with long sentences, not necessary for short sentences). I also researched the issue off-wiki, and found that it appears to be a national variety thing; the comma seems to be expected in AmEng, but whilst it is not wrong in BrEng, it's less accepted. More problematic is the incorrect use of "with" as a conjunction in the last comment ("... they proceeded to Tromsø, with the Lancasters climbing further...); I've seen that picked up on at FAC. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good catch - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Introductory phrase: I’ve checked out four of the several articles currently under AC review, all of which were written by users of British English. The introductory phrase was used in each of the four articles, sometime for only two words, including dates. So by custom or otherwise, the introductory phrase is alive and well in British English. The nominator of the subject article was asked to "consider" using the introductory phrase in a few instances, and chose to do so. Pendright (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: Just to check are your comments now all addressed? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: The article must come first, so the answer to your question is yes. Pendright (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Obviate&oldid=889535758"