Wikipedia:Peer review/Warsaw airlift/archive1

Warsaw airlift

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because (a.) I have just created it, (b.) created because there was no Wikipedia reference to these series of flights by British, American, South African and Russian aircraft in support of the Polish Home Army besieged in Warsaw in 1944.

Thanks, Farawayman (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions: G'day very interesting article. Good work so far. I've done some minor copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my edits and adjust where you see fit. Other comments that I have are:
- the map in the infobox: due to the size it is almost impossible to differeniate the lines on it without clicking on it to make it bigger. At FAC someone might ask you to just crop and enlarge the relevant part of the map, cutting out the peripherial areas; Map has been enlarged and moved into text section of article. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- slightly inconsistent presentation: "Vistula river" v. "Vistula River". It should be consistent. I think "Vistula River" is more correct, given that it seems to be a proper noun; Corrected to Vistula River Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this sentence probably needs a citation: "This action caused the Soviets to pause in order to re-group and bought Army Group Centre the time needed to deal with the resistance encountered within Warsaw itself." Found the text and added citation. Farawayman (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that there is a missing close bracket here: "containers (a load of 1,800 kg (3,968.3 lb) and..." Well spotted - corrected. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "north east from the allied bases in Apulia and Brindisi in Italy..." Should this be "Allied"? Correct, fixed. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major General Durrant of 205 Group RAF..." Should this link to Jimmy Durrant?; Yes - link added. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent capitalisation: "Operation Frantic" and "FRANTIC"; Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Citations there is a minor stylistic issue: for example compare "Davies (2004), pp248" v "Orpen (1984), pp.159"; Standardised to pp. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Citations, is there a page number for note 8? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Replaced with a better citation. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - all valid and appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Good luck with the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Here are my comments:
- The article should note that the RAF squadrons included many personnel from other countries. Several members of the Royal Australian Air Force took part in this operation, for instance. Added note with citation referring to RAAF aircrew in 148 and 178 Sqn's RAF Farawayman (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- London Poles shouldn't be in italics Fixed Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The plight of the Poles captured the imagination of the world" - this is a bit of an overstatement. It obviously didn't capture the imagination of the Germans, for instance. Agree - Changed "world" to "Western Allies" Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RAF units have a 'No.' as part of their names (eg, '205 Group RAF' should be 'No. 205 Group RAF') Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The various RAF units should also be linked Done Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While the military uses all-caps for operations names, this isn't normally used by historians, so 'OPERATION FRANTIC' should be 'Operation Frantic' Changed to Sentence Case Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the USAAF aircraft which flew to Warsaw land to refuel? Direct line flight distance from UK airfields to Warsaw is +-900mi (1,400km) - actual range was longer, because they didn't fly the shortest route. B17 max range was approx 2,000 mi (3,200km). They could reach Warsaw from the UK, but did not have sufficient range (including min reserve fuel) to return from Warsaw back to UK. This is why they were compelled to land in Soviet occupied territory - which caused all of the political problems related to getting prior clearance for re-fueling from the Soviets! Farawayman (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Russians would have mastered the Polish Resistance in much the same way as the British and Americans had eliminated the resistance in Italy and would have done in France if de Gaulle had pressed his independence too far." - what resistance in Italy did the Allies 'eliminate'? That assessment about de Gaulle also seems way off the mark - he did press his independence too far, but the UK and US put up with him as he was by 1944 the closest thing to a credible French government which was available. I note that this is cited to AJP Taylor, who's now regarded as being outdated and somewhat unreliable at times.Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Excessive speculative text from AJP Taylor removed. Farawayman (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I think the last section could be enlarged to answer questions like: was it successful? was there blame for not doing more? what did commentators in Britain, the US, and the USSR think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]