User:Gog the Mild/sandbox2

user:Dank, user:Keith-264, user:Nick-D, user:EnigmaMcmxc, user:Harrias. I am contacting you because you are names I recognised and knew to be still active from the list of contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Normandy - remember that? It was before my time. (And Harrias because I owe them a negative favour.) It has been brought to my attention (see Hog Farm's talk page) that Omaha Beach has been demoted from FA. Quite reasonably, looking at it. I thought that it would be interesting to try and get it re-promoted. If it goes well it might be fun to see if the other four and Normandy landings could also make FA.

So I would like to seek your opinions/pick your brains on some specific points - see below. I would also, very much, be up for a collaboration if any of you fancy revisiting Normandy.

The current article - Omaha Beach - seems almost unsalvageable. Something akin to WP:TNT is called for.
But there is material in there which seems worth preserving. One of the flaws of the article is that it peters our at around 9:00 am. So perhaps much of the material could be moved to a new article (provisionally Fight for the beaches at Omaha Beach, although it really needs a title that does not repeat "beach") and copy edited into some sort of shape
Similarly, perhaps the lengthy section on RAF involvement could be moved to RAF at Omaha Beach and summarised in the main article.
This would leave a close to blank page on which a "new" article could be written. I have blocked out here a possible outline to start with.
Some material from the current article can be used, some can be copied in from other articles (I have already stolen some from Juno Beach. As for the rest, I am sure that for all of us the problem will be more summarising down a plethora of sources than not having any.

Regarding the three drafts above, please ignore virtually all of the text, it is just by way of placeholding. The section titles outlining what I see as the main points are what I am really trying to communicate. (I didn't want to put too much work in to then be told I had a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick and that I had been wasting my time.)

If this seems a reasonable course of action, then IMO the next course of action is to cut out any of the draft (Omaha Beach) we don't like and fill in the blanks. We have all done the latter before and I don't foresee major problems. Then rinse and repeat five times. If you don't want to work on the article, or do but not to the extent of collaborating, I would still very much value your opinions on my proposed course of action. Thanks.

What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Military cog

Aside from general introductory material, you need to delete material that is fully covered in the main cog article and focus on what makes these different from ordinary cogs
Forex, the lede needs to be heavily refocused as a summary of the main body with a lot less specific detail, but that can wait. There's a reason why I generally write the lede last.
I don't think that we really need to cover the construction except for whatever differences warships might have had from ordinary cogs
Are the larger cogs generally warships, or at least armed for self-protection? Or don't we know?
Are there any illustrations available for war cogs in profile specifically?
Give the general lack of technical info available specifically on cog warships, the real meat of this is obviously going to be on their use and you should probably have a 1 or 2-paragraph summary of their activities in each of the battles that you've listed here.
Be sure to discuss how their lack of maneuverability could leave them stranded in port for months at a time and how that impacted campaigning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)