Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Closed, no consensus to promote -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blockhaus d'Éperlecques[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk)


This article is the first in a series of articles on German V-weapons sites (see also La Coupole and Fortress of Mimoyecques, which I also wrote); I'm hoping to get them up to featured standard in due course. It has recently appeared on DYK and easily passed a B-class review. The article is pretty comprehensive - I visited the site itself and also obtained numerous contemporary photographs, plans and reports, which are quoted and shown in the article. I feel that it meets the A-class criteria and would like to know whether others believe that it has reached that standard. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Per WP:ENDASH, avoid dashes after certain prepositions, such as "between". I fixed the first one.
  • Per WP:BADEMPHASIS, quote marks around italics are generally discouraged ("Wunderwaffe").
  • "in 1941-42": Some would change the hyphen to an en-dash; I prefer "in 1941 and 1942" when you are talking about two particular years, rather than an event that spanned two years. Same goes for "1940-41", etc.
  • We're generally not italicizing "en route", but feel free if there's a dictionary you like that says otherwise.
  • "a greatly expanded Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force": Some readers will wonder if you mean that the USAAF was greatly expanded too (even though there's an argument that it can't mean that ... people read fast), so better is: "the United States Army Air Force and a greatly expanded Royal Air Force". It's often better to put a complex element in a series last; see WP:Checklist#series. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • Retrieval dates for your web references are inconsistent. Pick one format and stick to it.
  • Done.
  • Titles of your English-language books are inconsistent. Properly capitalize them.
  • Done, though I should note that not all the titles are capitalised in the originals.
  • I understand about the French capitalization rules, and you need not worry about them. But all English-language sources need to be properly capitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all the English-language sources are properly capitalised now. Did I miss any?
  • What's the deal with the Aug 6 '44 entry in your table? Are they the s/n's for the aircraft lost or not? It doesn't appear that they are give the differing fates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this was confusing, so I've removed the number. The content is actually something that was added by a previous editor but I don't think it works. Prioryman (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just delete the bit about the aircraft s/n's and fates as one still doesn't match the text immediately above.
  • Agreed, and done.
  • All refs need place of publication, and fix capitalization in Boog's title and Zaloga's publisher.
  • Done.
  • Why are block quotes used in the refs section instead of in the notes section?
  • I assume you mean the two italicised quotes? I agree they're not necessary; I've taken them out.
  • Fix the dead link at Baugher.
  • I gave up on Baugher and replaced that source.
  • Sometimes your page # have a space between them and sometimes they don't, notably Dornberger and Irving. Ensure that they all do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs -- In refs but not cited: Comparative test, hinsley, king, lavenant, morgan, nichol. Cited but not in refs: zaloga.  – Ling.Nut 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure to understand. Zaloga is in ref (Zaloga, Steven J. (2008). German V-Weapon Sites 1943-45. Oxford: Osprey Publishing). Comparative test, lavenant, morgan are cited with, respectively, ref #39, 42, 44. Please advise
  • nichol: was removed during an intermediate edit. Restored. Thanks
  • king: Missing but needed to understand chronology. Discovered in April-May, Sanders recommended to bomb Watten on August 6 but was finally bombed on August 27. Added the info + citation. Thanks for pointing this out.
  • hinsley: to account for the role of the Belgian and French Resistance in the assessment of Watten. Joseph Dubar had Watten infiltrated by members of the Network Ali-France. This combined with the unusual escape rate from the concentration/work camp of Watten brought a lot of information back to London, triggering the attack on August 27. Added information. This information will be incorporated at a later stage as finding sources is not easy. Added Hinsley as reference for "Allied agent" in the text. Please keep in mind that Hinsley is a primary source, official historian of the British gvt, but that's all what I have for the moment.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current 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/Blockhaus_d%27Éperlecques&oldid=442847846"