Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Pedestal

Operation Pedestal

Note, not transcluded until 3 August 2009, Woody (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I had done a lot of work over this article a lot of time ago, and I wanted some opinions as to how it can be improved. I really would like some ideas for it! Reuv (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to see more details on the air battles. Some references for that would be Malta: The Spitfire Years by Christopher Shores and an similar book by Brian Cull. There's also Courage Alone by Christopher Dunning which covers the Italian Air Force in some detail. Also I don't recall seeing how the Italian surface ships were either damaged or sunk; that might be expanded as well. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Doesn't look too bad at all, in fact I think you've done quite well with it. But it is not really an area of which I have much knowledge, so I can't really help with content. Sorry. Anyway, I have a couple of comments:

• check that your dashes and hyphens conform with WP:DASH, seems like there is some confusion in the infobox with the use of an emdash where an endash should be used, also in the lead there is a hyphen where an unspaced emdash or a spaced endash should be used (yes, I know its a nitpick);
• per the WP:MOS headings shouldn't being with 'the' (you have one);
• you refer to Great Britain and the United Kingdom throughout the article, please be consistent in terminology. I think (I could be wrong and am probably risking the wrath of the Gods) that United Kingdom is the preferred term in the project;
• is there a need to include post nominals in text when mentioning the commanders, these would be included on their own entries and their inclusion takes the eye off the important stuff—the text;
• referencing is generally very good, but there are a couple of paragraphs where you have a citation in the first part, and none in the second, giving the impression that the second part of the paragraph is uncited (an example is in the Planning section, second paragraph). If you added a cite to the last sentence of the paragraph it would help improve the referencing (or at least allay any concerns about where they info came from);
• some of the images could be left aligned;
• check the way that you deal with numbers in text, generally numbers greater than ten should be depicted with numbers per the WP:MOS, although consistency is more the focus, so if you choose to spell in some cases, you should spell in all cases greater than ten;
• in The Forces section, some of the bracketted information has been italicised when I don't think it should be as italics are generally reserved just for the ships names.

Hope this helps. Keep up the good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• No mention of any aircraft losses in the inf box under Casualties and losses
• Also we have 784 Axis aircraft recorded but nothing for the British, with four carriers and transported spits there must be some data available for how many they had.
• Dates in the inf box you have used August 9 while in the text the format is reversed 9 August for consistency you should pick one format and use it throughout.
• The first paragraph of the planning section is uncited.
• There is only one cite for the second para at the end of the first sentence this also need more cites.
• De link dates - this is ever changing but the preference is for them not to be linked.
• The notes also all need cites
• Overall it looks good but a lot more cites are required in all sections. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very detailed and well illustrated article on an interesting battle - well done. I've got the following suggestions for how it could be further developed:

• The first para in the lead reads awkwardly, and jumps from topic to topic
• The citation given for the claim that this was "one of the most important British strategic victories of the Second World War" doesn't seem to support this and may not be a reliable source
• The 'background' section is a bit brief
• As this is about a British-dominated operation, British English spelling should be used - words like 'recognized' should be replaced with 'recognised', etc.
• I don't think that 'Force X' and 'Force Z' should be in italics
• More citations are needed so that all material is clearly covered by a cite
• The article appears to tell the story from primarily the British perspective. More material on Axis operations would be great.
• Did the Axis know that the convoy was coming? They had observation posts in Spain which kept an eye on all traffic passing through the Strait of Gibraltar, and the decision to not maintain radio silence would have allowed them to use radio direction finding to track the force
• 'the enemy's' and similar terms shouldn't be used as they're not neutral
• A map showing the convoy's route and where major events took place would be fantastic
• The sections on August 14 and 15 are rather brief. Did the attacks on the surviving ships abate once they reached the range of Malta's Spitfires?
• The introduction states that Malta wasn't "an effective offensive base for much of 1942" but the 'Aftermath' section states that it was a base for very effective attacks once the convoy arrived. This is a bit confusing, and I think that more details on the forces based at Malta in August 1942 would be useful.
• Rommel didn't assault the Allies on 23 October 1942 - this was when the Allies went on the offensive. It's also not correct to state that the mindset of the Axis forces before this battle was 'How many days to Cairo' - Rommel had been seeking permission to withdraw to a more defensible position for weeks before the battle and knew that he couldn't defeat an Allied attack, much less go on the offensive.
• Did Ultra intercepts play any part in planning the convoy and during the battle?
• 'The Forces' section should include the Axis air units which played such a key role in this battle. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)