Talk:Operation Pedestal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 00:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Good work so far on this one. I can see that a lot of work has already gone into it. At this stage I don’t think it is quite up to GA standard, but I think it has serious potential. As such, I will try to highlight the key issues, and I will look to keep the review open while these are worked through. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• the main issue that I see is referencing: large chunks of the article appear to be uncited because of the placement of references/citations. For instance the following areas:

• in the lead, “military history as one of the most important”…the placement of the citation here seems a little strange. I’d suggest moving it to the end of the sentence  Done
• “Malta was a critical component[10] to this campaign”. I suggest moving the citation to after the word “campaign” Done
• “Churchill, in Moscow at the time, attached such importance to the mission that he asked to be briefed daily about it” Suppressed pending a citation.
• the entire first paragraph of the Planning section Done
• the Italian commander is listed in the infobox, but appears to be unreferenced…this could be fixed by adding mention of him in the article body, with a reference
• “This made alterations to the Operation Orders[9] necessary”. I suggest moving the ref to after the word “necessary” Done
• “but this risk to security was worth the benefit gained from the rehearsals”…I suggest stating who believed this, and adding a citation to the text Done
• the last part of the second paragraph of the Planning section Done
• in the Prelim moves section, the sentence ending with “…contained in envelopes marked "Not to be opened until 0800 hours August 10" were handed to the ships' masters.”
• the sentence ending, “…but this risk to security was worth the benefit gained from the rehearsals” (and note d) Done
• “…however, showed that the enemy was fully aware of the convoy's passage of the Straits” (probably could be resolved by moving ref # 9)
• the sentence ending, “…and having reached the Skerki Bank, it was hoped that the submarine threat would subside.”
• the paragraph ending, “…HMS Nigeria and the other damaged ships turned back to Gibraltar with HMS Wilton and HMS Bicester as escorts.” Done
• the sentence ending, “…Fighters from Malta were fired upon by the convoy in the confusion because communications between the convoy and the RAF were still out.” Done
• the paragraph ending, “…The crew, led by Captain D.W. Mason, abandoned the ship, while Italian torpedo bombers were about to dive in for yet another attack.” Done
• “The Italian Regia Marina was hampered[16]”: the position of the citation here doesn’t seem necessary. I suggest moving it to the end of the sentence Done
• the paragraph ending, “…Neither ship returned to action during the war” Done
• the sentence ending, “…anti-aircraft guns on Ohio during the tow.” (probably could be resolved by moving ref # 32) Done
• the paragraph ending, “…until it was re-established with Bramham replacing Ledbury on Ohio 's port side for the remainder of the journey” Done
• “manoeuvring "comparable to that of a fleet unit”  the quote should be attributed in text, i.e. state who’s opinion it is that the convoy achieved this Done
• “…The tanker discharged its cargo into two tankers and settled on the bottom just as the last of the fuel it transported left her holds” (I suggest moving the footnote back into the main body of the text here)
• “…From the moment the shield of Spitfires patrolled over the unloading battered ships, it became obvious that ships could now arrive and be protected, meaning that more ships would come in due course, thus sustaining the will to endure.” (needs a ref and the sentiment probably needs attribution…i.e. to whom did it become obvious) Done
• “significantly contributed to the Axis' worsening state of supply and led to their eventual inability to compete with the British build-up for an offensive towards the end of the year” (needs a citation in addition to the footnote)
• this sentence, “Operation Pedestal was the subject of a 1953 black and white British film, Malta Story, which interspersed archive footage of the SS Ohio with scripted studio scenes.”
• the order of battle section probably needs more references too. I’d suggest just adding the general refs to the stem sentences, i.e. “Allied ships that took part in this operation included:[ref][ref]…” Done?
• several of the notes do not have citations either, for instance ‘c’, ‘d’ etc.

• sourcing:

• is this a reliable source: [1]?
• same as above for: [2]
• same as above for: [3] (also it appears to be a dead link – can a web archive link be added)?
• same as above for: [4] (also it appears to be a dead link)

• reference presentation:

• while not necessarily one of the good article criteria, the article would be improved by using a more consistent referencing style. For instance you mix full citations with short, and there are several bare urls that could be formatted
• “including 160 on HMS Eagle, 132 on HMS Manchester, 52 on HMS Nigeria, 50”  probably should be a Note, not a Reference

• foreign language title: in the References, the title “Uomini sul fondo: storia del sommergibilismo italiano dalle origini a oggi” should also include an English translation. This can be added to the template by using the “|trans_title=” parameter
• date format: slightly inconsistent: e.g compare “2012-06-30” with “8 May 2011”
• overlinking: watch out for overlinking of terms, for instance: Gibraltar, Admiralty, Short Sunderland, Junkers Ju 88, Junkers Ju 87 etc.
• presentation of names: “Rear Admiral A. L. St. G. Lyster, CB, CVO, DSO, Rear-Admiral H. M. Burrough, CB, DSO, Vice-Admiral E. N. Syfret, CB”. I suggest using full names, not initials. Equally, this sentence could be tidied up. For instance, “Rear Admirals Lumley Lyster and Harold Burrough, Vice Admiral Neville Syfret, and the Naval Staff”. Done
• grammar/word choice:

• “For the high price of nine merchantmen sunk, one aircraft carrier (Eagle), two cruisers (Manchester and Cairo), and a destroyer (Foresight) sunk…” -->“For the high price of 13 vessels sunk, including nine merchantmen, one aircraft carrier (Eagle), two cruisers (Manchester and Cairo), and a destroyer (Foresight)…”
• “Submarines and torpedo-carrying Bristol Beauforts escorted by their variants the Bristol Beaufighters, regularly…” --> “Submarines and torpedo-carrying Bristol Beauforts escorted by Bristol Beaufighters, regularly…”
• “From about 18:30–18:50, the convoy…” --> “Between 13:30 and 18:50, the convoy…”
• "From about 20:35–21:00..." --> "Between 20:35 and 21:00..."
• “with 80 of the 107 crew killed…” --> “with 80 of the 107 crewmembers killed”
• “adopting a more aggressive and dynamic conduct” --> “adopting more aggressive and dynamic tactics”?
• “Ultimately, Malta was still alive while any hope to maintain North Africa was quickly fading away, with the now looming possibility of having the Allies opening up a Third Front on the Italian mainland”. I suggest moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph it is currently in
• “clearly demonstrated that the tide in this campaign had turned” --> demonstrated to whom?
• I think some parts of the prose could do with a copy edit. Do you have a copy editor that you regularly work with? If not, perhaps you could list the article over at WP:GOCE?

• I've fixed a number of the points listed above regarding grammar, but still feel it needs a copy edit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• finally, have all points raised during the article's peer review been addressed?
  • @Gog the Mild: Anyway, that is it from me for the moment. If these points can be addressed, I will look to come back next Thursday (five days from now) and see how we are getting on. I will be travelling after that for about a week, so I'm happy to extend the review if need be. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure if the nominator is watching this page or not, but tomorrow will be my last day with internet for a week or so. I will look to keep the review open until I get back from my vacation, and then see where we are at. If no action has been taken to address the points raised/tags that have been added to the article, I will look to close the review as unsuccessful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
      • AustralianRupert, I wouldn't count on the nominator's participation: so far as I can see, his only two edits to the article were around the time he nominated it last month—to fix a typo and add a "citation needed" tag. That he didn't try to find a citation himself does not bode well. When you return, you might want to try to engage him directly on his talk page to discover his plans for the nomination, or just close it if there hasn't been any response, given that the canned "starting review" and "on hold" messages have already been posted there. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
        • G'day, I'm back now. I've posted a note on the nominator's talk page now: [5]. I intend to close the review as unsuccessful in three days' time if the remaining points haven't been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Tried to add a note for the OOB reference but I'm not familiar with the system being used so it's come out as a footnote instead.Keith-264 (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Keith, I've fixed this now. To be honest, I don't think the current notes system is a good one. It is a bit too prone to human error. I think {{efn}} would probably be better. Likewise, I'd suggest converting the references/citations to {{sfn}} for consistency. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Done
• Me too, I've ce'd the main text and added cites from Roskill but feel free to revert if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Added cites from Playfair and ce. What's the tl in {{sfn}}?Keith-264 (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, Keith, thanks for these edits: great work. The "tl" is just a html trick to allow the template to show up as a link when not in edit mode. It is probably only used when talking about the template, rather than trying to use/employ it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Greetings, ah I see now. I gleaned as much as I could from the OH series but not as much as I'd hoped I'm afraid and Amazon's look inside failed somewhat too. I got stuck when I added vessels to the Axis OOB because the col-break etc put the list on the right.Keith-264 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Made a start on  Done for the criteria above. Any objection to me changing it to sfn's?Keith-264 (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers, Keith, I think that would be a good move. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Apols, I overrode your recent edits by putting a version from a sandbox on the article space with sfns etc: I put your version User talk:Keith-264/sandbox5 here to preserve them.Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've got most of the sfn's done but will try to convert the remainder to book citations to reduce the article's reliance on websites after lunch (and to get rid of the CN tags).Keith-264 (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks, Keith. I am taking a break from the article until morning (probably about eight to ten hours or so). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'll add a casualties section too to un-bloat the infobox.Keith-264 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The battle section seems to have sections taken from a source that is written like a hack newspaper article, with announcements of what will happen then a description and then anachronism. Playfair had a pretty good narrative so I'm minded to redo it tomorrow (It's nearly midnight here).Keith-264 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• I expect to have cites for the Wellum and Malta Story items later today.Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Done
  • Apropos, is it a matter of preference to italicise code words?Keith-264 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, Keith, my understanding is that italics aren't used in this regard per WP:MILMOS#CODENAME. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Done
• Added material on Axis plans and preparations, it could do with a ce though. I'll go over the battle section tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Great work, Keith, I am very impressed with the changes you've made. From what I can see there is only one citation needed tag left, and one page needed tag. Do you have anything that can cover these? If not, I wonder if any of Milhist's regulars can help. @Sturmvogel 66, Parsecboy, Nick-D, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7, and Anotherclown: Gents, are any of you able to help with the remaining cite needed/page needed tags? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• It Wiki tried here but no sources.Keith-264 (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Redoing OOB but I don't know how to find the {{HMS|Ship|D67|?}} ? (assuming there is one). any suggestions appreciated. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, Keith, do you mean HMS Wishart (D67)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    • All of them. I thought I'd worked the suffix number (the ? in the template above) out but alas not. Having redone the OOB I can't work out how to link the ones that I can't copy from the original version. Keith-264 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay, I understand. The ship template...I tend to not use it personally as it confuses me. Anyway, you need to know the pendant number to make it work, and the last numeral governs how it is presented (6 will display as "HMS Badsworth", while 2 will display as "Badsworth" for example, and 0 will display as "HMS Badsworth (L03)". I just played around with it in my sandbox. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, I thought the last number was the position in a disambiguation list. No wonder it all went wrong.... I'll crack on with the Battle section.Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Got much of the battle section done but it's slow because the RN OH and the general OH keep contradicting each other.Keith-264 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Still no citation for footnote B I'm afraid.Keith-264 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, Keith, do you have anything that just covers equipment/platform losses? For instance, two submarines sunk, two cruisers damaged, x number of aircraft shot down (etc.)? If so, I suggest we just remove Note b and go with refs for the equipment/platform losses. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The OHs, Latimer and Vego. I think I'm using Vego a little too much for comfort but it's a good recent synthesis of strategy and operations, especially the influence of Ultra. I'm going to plod on with the battle section and then have a go at a casualties section (unless someone else fancies a go) but I fear you're right about note B.Keith-264 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day Keith, thanks for adding that. The casualties section looks quite good, IMO. A couple of minor concerns, though: the lead says "cost more than 500 lives" - is this Allied lives, or total? Probably best to clarify. Also, the infobox says 60 Axis aircraft, but the casualties section says between 35 and 42. If this can be cleared up, I will look to close the GA review as successful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Greetings, I'm not sure about the casualties as my sources are vague. I got the merchant navy ones [citation] from a look inside on Amazon but some of the other cited books don't have it or won't let me back in, having used the facility once already. I've got to finish 12/13 August afternoon, night and morning in the battle section and then have a read through because some of the air raids might be overlaps (same raid noted at different times by different sources, comprising different aircraft or Ju 88s dive-bombing and being called Ju 87s in consequence); I'm uncertain about section headings too and where to put MG 3 so am regarding them as place holders. I hope to glean something from Santoro in Further reading but the url is to a photocopy source. I'll have to copy any text before using a machine translator; tables etc are easier since the numbers don't need translating and I might be lucky but I'll leave that till last, in case it's a dead-end. Thanks for suggesting work on this article, it's made a pleasant change to work co-operatively again, quite the Xmas present ;O)). Keith-264 (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day Keith, I will close the GA review now, as I believe that it meets the criteria now. You have done a fantastic job on improving the article, and I believe that it wouldn't take much more work if you wanted to take it to A-class Review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the compliment but I thought that it was a team effort and all the better for it. ;O)) I'm not satisfied with the Battle section for the reasons above and the OOB needs a little work but I need a little time away from it before I have another look. Keith-264 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)