Talk:Operation Hydra (1943)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeOperation Hydra (1943) was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
December 1, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Operation Hydra (1943):


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Copyedit : phrasing could be better - reads like an official report
  • Expand : see comments below re intro & general content
  • Verify : outstanding "citation needed" to be resolved and see comments below on sources
  • Wikify : bullet points are usually discouraged, so these should be presented in a "wiki" standard
  • Other : maps and relevant pictures would be useful

Picture on main page[edit]

I got to this page from the discussion of Spaceship One (wonderful thought process). The picture attracted my attention first because there is no turret in the nose, so I downloaded the picture and it calls itself a Lancastrian. There must be a better picture that can be used somewhere.

Soarhead77 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

GA discussion[edit]

I don't nkow whether to put this on hold or not yet - is there a reason no book references were used for this article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, simply the fact that I don't have any on this subject. The websites were chosen in accordance with the guidelines on reliable sources for 2c of the GA process, although that guideline is admittedly pretty subjective. I will try to get my hands on some books about strategic bombing, which may contain this subject. While they are very unlikely to say anything different to what is written here, it may give the article more verifiability. Thanks for the preliminary look over Jeff. Chrisfow 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any problems with the sources you've used, but I'm also not sure if this article is as comprehensive as it could be given the lack of non-web-based sources. It may not have much to add (my personal area of focus in college was the political side of WW2, not the military), but one never knows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, consulted books and guess what? Came up with a lot of extra content! Thanks for the nudge, I think it is a better article now, hope that you agree and that it can move towards GA. While these additions may affect the "Stability" clause in the GA criteria, I would have thought that since this is 'under review' it could be counted as the same as changes during a 7 day hold period. Anyway, hope you enjoy the new additions! Chrisfow 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm impressed. It looks more comprehensive and feels better, too. I'll give it a more thorough look over shortly and I think we'll be set. And I wouldn't worry about stability, I read that as "edit warring and other battle nonsense." --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

GA nom on hold[edit]

I've decided to put this article on hold. It's mostly strong but I'm concerned about this sentence in the intro:

"Despite the attack being a success, it was too little, too late, and consequently did not stop the Germans from developing, building and using 'V' weapons against London and South East England."

As the third sentence of the article, this is obviously important. But it should be rewritten to use better prose, and also to clarify what the results were, exactly. It implies that the attack was at once "a success" but also failed in its long-term goal, which is hard to reconcile. Once this sentence is improved, the article can be placed on the Good Articles list.

As a future direction for this article, I suggest adding more information on the German reaction to the attack, which is currently sparse. Twinxor t 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that this hasn't been changed, but it my opinion it's still a significant problem with the article. Please consider reworking this sentence and resubmitting the article as a good article candidate. Twinxor t 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I edited the lead section to show that the attack was a tactical success but a strategic failure, which is how the two aspects are reconciled. I have to say that I thought I had changed it more than that, so I will certainly rework it when I have time and resubmit. Thanks Twinxor for reviewing the article, and I hope to resubmit soon. Chrisfow 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

General Intelligibility[edit]

In the section "Operation Hydra", subsections First Wave, Second Wave do not tell the reader what happened! The information about markers is fascinating no doubt to those whose mission was marking, but the overall mission was to bomb the plant, and we are not told anything about this. Did anyone in fact drop any bombs? Did anyone try? Did any bombs hit? Were any barracks destroyed? Ditto for the Second Wave. The third subsection does a little better but not much - we can surmise that the 5th and 6th groups were groups of bombers that must have dropped many bombs, and we are told that a few bombloads did damage. Weren't there thousands of bombs dropped? What did they hit? Maybe we'll learn this in the "Results" section, but no. There we are only told that the raid was inconclusive, two leaders were either buried alive or killed or something, and many workers were killed in some camp. Presumably this was the living quarters? Why not tell us plainly so we don't have to deduce it from thin hints? What about the rockets? This was a rocket base, were there in fact any rockets destroyed? Sorry to be a "pine" but wouldn't a Good Article tell us what happened? Friendly Person (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Book suggestion[edit]

A book that you might want to consult (although it may be a bit hard to get hold of) is "The Rocket and the Reich: Peenemünde and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era" by Michael Neufeld. It certainly has some information about the bombing that isn't included in the article. Unfortunately I don't have it on hand right now so can't offer any more help than that. MLilburne 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PS... and I do agree that more is needed on the German reactions to the attack, and the consequences for Peenemunde and the missile program. MLilburne 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MLilburne, I can get hold of that book from my university library. Does it cover the German reaction to the attack? I agree with Twixor that that is something for beyond GA - I will get the book as soon as practical. Chrisfow 12:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. It is almost all about the German side of things so should be useful to you. MLilburne 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This one seems to be recently published, and can't but be useful: "The Peenemunde Raid: The Night of 17-18 August 1943" by Martin Middlebrook. MLilburne 12:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again ML. I can only get hold of the 1982 version of this, not the more recent reprint, but will track it down. Chrisfow 13:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Hope you find it helpful. MLilburne 13:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombing of Peenemünde in World War II. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bombing of Peenemünde in World War II. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 05:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)