Talk:Operation Title

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Title/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 02:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Claiming this one, comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Generally, this is in excellent order, so only a few nitpicks:

• Lead seems short relative to the overall length of the article
  • Expanded Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps a style thing, but it seems that British ranks aren't linked but German ones are?
  • I've delinked grand admiral as the concept seems straightforward, but kept Kapitän zur See linked as this seems a less readily understandable concept. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Also a little inconsistency with how German ranks are presented, some in English and some German, e.g. Kapitän zur See Karl Topp commanded Tirpitz at this time.
  • I've stuck with the English language term for Großadmiral and the German term for Kapitän zur See as 'grand admiral' has a direct translation while Kapitän zur See does not. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Manned torpedoes were used by the Italian Regia Marina...: suggest "Manned torpedoes were used by the Regia Marina (Italian Navy)" for consistency with presentation/translation of Kriegsmarine earlier in article
  • Good point - done Nick-D (talk)
• Sergeant Don Craig (a member of the British Army)...: suggest soldier instead of member
  • Done
• Dupelinks: Home Fleet, Tautra, patrol boat
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Sources look reliable (I am quite familiar with Bishop, Chesneau, Sweetman, and Chesneau) and predominantly published in the last 11 years
• Image tags are all OK
• Strictly a suggestion but perhaps add another image, maybe an additional one of a Chariot, to the Voyage to Trondheimsfjorden/Trondheimsfjorden sections
  • I've added another image. There are surprisingly few useful and clearly PD images related to the topic of this article on Commons. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• I did a few little tweaks as I went through and spotted what I thought were errors, check you are OK with these.

That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• @Zawed: I'm sorry about my slow response to your excellent review. I've been crazy-busy at work, and haven't had much time for Wikipedia editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Zawed: Sorry again for the delays, but I think that I've now responded to all your comments above. Thank you again. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Nick, this looks all good, so passing as a GA now as I believe this meets the necessary criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an attempted British-Norwegian attack on the German battleship Tirpitz was abandoned after two Chariot manned torpedoes were lost due to bad weather? Source: citations 29, 47, 48 amongst many others.
  • Reviewed: Illusion of Kate Moss
  • Comment: second article of the review

Improved to Good Article status by Nick-D (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Operation Title; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

I will review this artcle.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I made some minor punctuation, spelling, and a few copy edits here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

An update to the full diff here for a book url and to fix a contraction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The copy vio check identified quotes and some multiple-word combinations, like prisoner of war. There were also some like "the crew would then attempt" or versions of this. No issues found. The only question is whether to use an image. –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Nick-D and Onegreatjoke:, This is a very well-written and interesting article. Loved it. The hook is good. I am just wondering, what do you think of having an image of the Tirpitz or a Chariot manned torpedo for the DYK?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Probably not the best option for a group of DYK hooks given that there aren't any photos of the Chariots involved in this option (and the generic photos aren't great) or Tirpitz at the location this took place. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As an FYI, I see that the article has moved to Template talk:Did you know/Approved. It is just a matter of time until a place is found for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)