Talk:Exercise Strikeback

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Operation Strikeback)
Former good article nomineeExercise Strikeback was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 23, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Operation Strikeback had the first use of single-sideband voice communications for tactical operations by the U.S. Navy?

Article launched[edit]

This article is duly launched. Like my JANAC article, there is comparatively little information available, either in print or online, about this subject. Any additional contributions will be greatly appreciated.Marcd30319 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...[edit]

... that Operation Strikeback had the first use of single sideband (SSB) voice communications for tactical operations by the U.S. Navy?

06:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Marcd30319 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entry was archived here.Marcd30319 (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening three paragraphs[edit]

I think everyone has been fine-tuning the opening three paragraphs, which has been to good effect. It seems to me that the introductory paragraphs should try to encapsulate the significance of the article's subject matter.

The first paragraph should be a high-level overview similar to the opening paragraph of any newspaper article -- who, what where, when, and how.

The second paragraph, in this case, should summarize the objectives of Operation Strikeback.

The last article should put Operation Strikeback into an historical context, such as the six NATO navies and sheer size of the undertaking, with Hanson Baldwin's contemporary quote from the New York Times highlights very dramatically.Marcd30319 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been me who had been "fine-tuning" them. Just trying to help! Good ideas above, though. Anyway, you should really take this to Peer Review....they will be able to help you with this, and then it wouldn't surprise me (with a few more refs) to see this article become a Good article! (Maybe even a Featured Article...) the_ed17 03:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this section (Operation Strikeback#Naval forces for Operation Strikeback) what sources, contemporary accounts etc. are you taking the list from? the_ed17 03:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the red links...if there is no suitable article within Wikipedia, then don't link them at all--red links can sink GA nominations... the_ed17 03:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when quoting an article, and the quote will be more than four lines long, don't indent....use the {{quote}} template instead... use it like so:
{{quote| blah blah blah<ref>source</ref>}} the_ed17 03:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thank you for your help and suggestions. The Peer Review suggestion is a good one.

I compiled the information on ships, aircraft, and port visits from:

  • U.S. Navy's Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS)
  • Google searches that located web site on ships and their ship histories
  • Inquiries posted on message boards.

These are cited in the on-line references of this article, and I believe that I can document the inclusion of each citation.

The two red links that you mention -- Task Force Alfa and the NATO ASW center -- are on my "to do" list, so rest assure that I plan to get cracking on them ASAP.

Thanks about the quotation heads-up. Good job. I do some concerns about photo placement (see below).

Again, thank you for your help.Marcd30319 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! Just make sure that
A) the sources are cited in the section header (don't add a citation for each individual topic...there would be like 100+ citations....) or (in the case of DANFS) maybe use a hidden comment tag??? (i.e. ...something along those lines...)
B) those inquires meet WP:V
C) Don't worry 'bout the red links then...just wanted to make sure that you remembered them! =)
Just suggestions to help the article! Have fun with it, and I'll try to help where I can. the_ed17 13:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have clarified the reference issues for the Naval forces for Operation Strikeback section.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. Keep what you have (including the DANFS note in parenthesis), but add what on-line ship histories, what newspaper accounts and what historical reference works you used...put them in references after the sentence... Do you understand what I mean? the_ed17 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it a partial or full listing of ships...it says partial, but with all of your updates and additions, is it still? the_ed17 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for those online references, take a look at the {{citeweb}} template....for any book references, see the {{citebook}}...and for any journal references, see the {{citejournal}}...they will help you cite those sources right. the_ed17 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image movement[edit]

I moved the 4 images around so that they would not interfere with where the [edit] buttons were displayed. Go here to see what I mean. the_ed17 03:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for the original image placement by "hanging" them off the Operational overview header was to complement the text in its sub-headers:
  • Image:NATO Operation Strikeback 01.jpg - This image dovetails with the reference to the Blue Fleet in the Scenario sub-section text since the USS Saratoga was its flagship. It also works with the fleet movement mentioned in Operation Seaspray.
  • Image:GIUK gap.png - This Wiki Commons image is a natural fit for Operation Fend Off and Operation Fishplay.
  • Image:FJ-3 VF-33 CVA-11.jpg - This Wiki Commons image complements 'Carrier-based air strike operations since it shows flight deck operations onboard the USS Wasp.
  • Image:USS Nantahala refuels USS Forrestal - Operation Strikeback 1957.jpg - This image complements Operation Pipedown regarding the underway replenishment group.

I appreciate your concerns about the edit button location. One solution may be to add a photo gallery at the end of the text for the entire Operational overview section although I would like to keep Image:GIUK gap.png near its text reference under Operation Fend Off and Operation Fishplay.

Again, thank you for your attention and hard work.Marcd30319 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So gracious. =) Alright, I get why you put the two carrier images where they were...sorry. You have a very good solution to that, and yes, it would be fine to leave the GUIK Gap image there. Also, if you have any questions about anything, feel free to ask...I've been around since March of 2006, so I know some of the 'proper' things you must do/template you should use/formatting you can use. Cheers! the_ed17 13:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your offer. Also, I launched the image gallery which included an additional image.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! You kept the *GIUK Gap* image there, as it was essential to understanding the article, and moved the "non-essential" (they are essential, but not to understand what you are talking about) down. the_ed17 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in general[edit]

Very good. I especially like your lead! Just be sure that all of your sources and references meet WP:RS and WP:V, and this should be a good article at least. the_ed17 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I did move the portals to bottom of article. I have seen portals located at the bottom of articles. The former portal location in the lead looked cluttered.Marcd30319 (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things now: take this to Peer Review to get additional reviewing from an out of universe perspective (yes, who knows, we may have missed something =D), and also nominate this to be a good article. If those go over well, you might even consider trying to make this a featured article! the_ed17 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:GenGruenther NATO.jpg[edit]

The image Image:GenGruenther NATO.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Strikeback/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; yes
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. no
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; no
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); no
    (c) it contains no original research. not sure
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; yes
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). no
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. yes
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute yes

Citations[edit]

There are several fact tags that need to be replaced by sources. All online sources need a date of retrieval in accordance with MOS.

Once again. All online sources need a date when they have been retrieved. Please correct that and I can make it pass the GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style[edit]

Far too many flowery quotes. replace them with summaries. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the quotes? —the_ed17— 19:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have truncated the Gruenther and Dulles quotes, eliminated the first Trainor quote, and retained the second Trainor and Time magazine quotes in toto. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should use summary style. The quotes contain lots of non-essential information. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

  • Implement the {{USS}} and {{warship}} tags where applicable. -MBK004 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good day! The {{USS}} and {{warship}} tags have been implemented to the extent that it could be done. Please note that Operation Strikeback transpired in 1957 prior to the 1975 realignment of the U.S. Navy's ship type designations. Thus, for example, the USS Saratoga (CV-60) had the designation of an "attack aircraft carrier" (i.e., CVA-60) during Operation Strikeback, which cannot be so denoted with {{USS}} and {{warship}} taggging. Marcd30319 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, they can as long as there is a redirect from that designation: i.e. USS Saratoga (CVA-60) -MBK004 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All {{USS}} and {{warship}} tags that can be implemented have been implemented.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see a few more, but I'll take care of them (they require specialized knowledge of the templates to implement). -MBK004 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAF Valiants[edit]

The include quote mentions the RAF's Valiant V-bombers but there seems to be no other mention of these aircraft within the article. Where these part of Strikeback or another exercise at the same time? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Operation Strikeback. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Exercise Strikeback. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Exercise Strikeback. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

omissions of aircraft on the saratoga[edit]

Your article states that the saratoga had 4 fighter squadrons. In checking the details, non of the 4 squadrons denote the Douglas F4D within those squadrons. Further your article states that there were losses of F4D due to accidents and collisions. I know from family history that in fact there was at least 2 F4Ds that 'disappeared' during this operation. Could you please determine the correct fighter/attack squadrons that the F4D's, which were based on the Saratoga, were assigned? Thanks Jim67.61.63.123 (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Exercise Strikeback. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Exercise Strikeback. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exercise_Strikeback&oldid=1213099182"