Talk:The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 May 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that historian Max Hastings called Thaddeus Holt's book The Deceivers a "worthy celebration" of British deception during World War II?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Deceivers: Allied Military Deception in the Second World War.

Wikipedia

Military history: British / European / World War II

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Airborne deception[edit]

I've reworked the airborne deception critique to make clear it's from Franklands review (which can probably be best described as mixed) and therefore attribute it as an opinion. Hopefully this is a good compromise. The current amendments (that there was very little airborne deception) isn't easy to source. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]