Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Paravane

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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Paravane

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/Operation Paravane/archive1

This article covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber squadrons. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the huge Tall Boy bomb was enough to end Tirpitz's active career. In addition to covering the raid, the article also describes the dramatic trip made by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents (with User:Manxruler providing considerable input on this topic).

The article is a follow up to the three on Royal Navy air strikes against Kaafjord which I've developed to FA class over recent years, and I'm hopeful that this can also go the distance. Thanks in advance for your comments and suggestions. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Battleship_Tirptiz_in_Kaafjord_during_May_1943.JPG: needs a US PD tag, and are you certain of the current tag? The source link suggests the image was taken by the Russians. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh, you're right - and it falls into the confusing copyright status of old Soviet images. I've removed the image: thanks for spotting this. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: excellent work as always, Nick. Thanks for your efforts. I have a few minor suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in the infobox the result is listed as British victory, but I wonder if "Tirpitz heavily damaged" or something similar might be more appropriate. Thoughts?
- I'd prefer to keep it simple, and this is noted in the casualty field. As the attack knocked Tirpitz out of the war, it was a complete victory for the Allies - they just couldn't confirm this! Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rudolf Peters is mentioned in the infobox but not in the body of the article
- Added a mention of him Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the squadrons that participated should be added to the units field in the infobox?
- I'd rather not, as the German order of battle is rather unclear (it involved Tirpitz's battlegroup, and a mish-mash of units responsible for northern Norway) Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"was mainly attributed to shortcomings..." --> mainly attributed by whom?
- By senior RN officers - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in the Works consulted section, could the title of the Christensen work be translated into English?
same as above for Hafsten, Nokleby, Pedrsen and Ulstein
- All done: [1] @Manxruler: could you please check the translations? I used Google translate, with some minor tweaks. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, those translated titles will still need some fixes here and there before they're how they should be. With regards to that issue, however, translating the title of a source (in any language) is something I've rarely seen done before. Before I break out my trusty dictionaries, why should the titles of non-English sources be translated in the first place? I've very rarely seen that done, even with regards to featured articles. I don't remember seeing a guideline for it either. Manxruler (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems helpful for explaining to readers what the books are about. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I see that, I'll work at it tomorrow morning. Manxruler (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've checked the translations, and tweaked them here and there. Should be good now. Manxruler (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if possible, another image in the Aftermath section would help break up the text a little more
- For an operation which had a dedicated photo and film aircraft and a dedicated photo recon aircraft, ridiculously few photos are available online. I'll look to add some generic images prior to a FAC. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ - just a few nitpicks

Recommend italics for "Kapitan zur See"
Why are most German ranks given in German except for Donitz's?
Could we get a picture of a Tallboy, and maybe a decent photo of the ship? Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The ranks should be in order now. Manxruler (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moving to support, though I'd still like to see a photo or two per above. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.