Talk:Operation Copperhead/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 12:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be taking this review. I will use the template below to assess the article against the criteria. Please mark your edits on the review page as Done when they are addressed. If there are any issues please let me know here or at my talk page. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 12:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
"Another factor was that, in early May, an uncontrolled agent based in Spain (who sold fictional intelligence to the Germans) had passed on details of a meeting in Gibraltar between several high-ranking Allied officers. Documents found after the war indicated the Germans found this information suspect, and that they might have treated Montgomery's appearance as equally so." Reference this please, also, it seems a bit like original research, especially the "they might have treated Montgomery's appearance as equally so" bit.
- Well, it is referenced in the normal style... but I have added a further inline citation to make this clear. Have you read the source? "seems like original research" is not helpful feedback unless you can communicate how I have improperly interpreted the source. :) Levine describes (in some detail, actually, and as part of his analysis of this op.) how this agent communicated such a meeting to Axis intelligence some days before James landed. He then describes how it was marked "deception?? who knows?" by said intelligence agency. And goes on to explain (as I then do) that the picture was so confusing for the Germans at this point they could not unpick what was deception and what was real information. If you have suggestions for rephrasing this to address your concern then that would be helpful. --Errant (chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
"James did not enjoy the experience. Although he received equivalent pay (£10 per day) to Montgomery during the operation, it was a high-pressure assignment. Following Montgomery's public appearance on the Western Front, James was flown back to England and the Pay Corps with a warning to keep quiet." Could you rewrite this so it has a more encyclopedic tone? And can you reference it aswell please.
- It's unclear to me where the problem lies with this paragraph. Could you be more explicit? This is already cited to Holt & Levine. --Errant (chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is "a warning to keep quiet" Rewrite that part please ★★RetroLord★★ 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Done --Errant (chat!) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll put it on hold and see what we can fix. ★★RetroLord★★ 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
"in his own uniform" Could you make this clearer? A bit confusing
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
" in the midst of a confusing array of Allied deception activities." Could we remove confusing here?
"It was later made into a film, with James in the starring role." Perhaps change to, "It was later adapted into a film"?
Could you change this in the lead aswell?
"perfect duplicate of the Field Marshal" Could you rewrite without "perfect duplicate"?
"Allied deceivers used their" Change deciever to spy?
"about his exploits." Change to experiences please
" held in high regard by" Is this true? Perhaps change to something along the lines of, they respected his military command skill, i dont think they were his biggest fans at OKW or OKH (german high commands)
" starring role" lead role?
"It was obvious" Obvious to who? Allied supreme headquarters? Seems like a bit of a redundant statement to me. The germans thought it was "obvious" that patton would take part in the invasion also(he didnt). Ref this specifically or remove it please. And if you do ref it, Probably reword the obvious bit.
" future Army films" Capitalised Army why?
" Although he received equivalent pay (£10 per day) to Montgomery during the operation, it was a high-pressure assignment." Could you please rewrite this sentence, the two concepts arent really related. Sentence implies that because he was paid so much he shouldnt have found it to be "highpressure".
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. 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). |
" A second likeness was found, but soon afterwards was injured in an accident" Reference this please
Are you putting references before or after statements?
"In preparation for the 1944 invasion of Normandy, the Allied nations conducted a complex series of deceptions under the codename Bodyguard. The overall aim of the plan was to confuse the enemy as to the exact location and timing of the invasion. Significant time was spent constructing a notional army, the First United States Army Group, to threaten Pas de Calais, as well as political and visual deceptions to communicate a fictional Allied battle plan. Copperhead was a small portion of the overall Bodyguard plan, conceived by Dudley Clarke. Clarke had previously pioneered strategic deception from his base in Cairo, and was not officially in charge of Bodyguard planning (a role that fell to the London Controlling Section)." Ref this paragraph please.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
" pioneered strategic deception" I'm having a hard time believing this. Especially with no ref. Are you implying that prior to this no one had ever used "deception"?
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Pending |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pending |