Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Goodwood (naval)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood (naval)[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)


As my first ACR in a rather long time, I'd like to present Operation Goodwood for consideration. This article covers a series of major aircraft carrier strikes the Royal Navy launched against the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. It was hoped that the scale of these attacks would wear down the German defences, but the operation ended in a rather embarrassing failure for the Royal Navy. The article builds on my work on the other major carrier raids on Tirpitz; FA Operation Tungsten (covering a fairly successful operation) and A-class Operation Mascot (another failure).

I've developed the article drawing on a large range of sources, and think that that it provides a comprehensive account of this operation. The article was assessed as GA in early July, and I again thank Ian Rose for his excellent feedback and edits in the GAN. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Maybe mention that Wolf Junge (in infobox) was the commander of Tirpitz? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea; I've just added that Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I found nothing to change, down to Attacks ... Thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support -- I reviewed, copyedited and passed at GAN, treating it as an ACR-in-waiting. Having checked changes since then I see no reason it shouldn't pass here, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support with comments

  • Date in infobox could be simplified to "22–29 August 1944"
    • Done
  • A map with broader coverage might be more helpful to locate the area for unfamiliar readers
    • I'll keep looking
  • "Despite the strength of the anti-aircraft units at Kaafjord, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) had few fighters stationed at the nearby airfields" - think you might do more to explicitly connect these two
    • Not sure what I was thinking there... I've removed the first half of the sentence as it's a bit pointless.
  • Were the intercepted radio messages sufficient to determine their plans, or only their presence?
    • Only their presence: I've replaced 'intercepted' with 'detected' which should be clearer
  • Only see 20 Corsairs in the Opposing forces section but then 24 in the actual attack - where were the other four?
    • oops - I can't add up. There were actually 30 Corsairs onboard HMS Formidable (18 with 1841 Squadron and 12 with 1842 Squadron). Fixed.
  • Times: what time zone are we in, and do you prefer to use lowercase or uppercase AM/PM? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Local Kaafjord time, and I prefer uppercase and have standardised on this. Thanks very much for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments - not much besides nitpicks:

  • "22nd" is incorrect per the MOS (I know, I find it rather frustrating to not be able to use the construction but it is what it is)
    • I think that I'll treat that this an exception to the MOS as that guidance isn't sensible in this context Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, Tirpitz might have been able to break out into the Atlantic, but the Germans would never have done that by that late in the war, so is it worth mentioning?
  • "pass over the minefield" - shouldn't it be "pass through the minefield"?
    • Yep, changed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "first detected the British fleet...were detected" - can we reword that to remove the repetition of "detected"? Maybe something along the lines of "The Germans were alerted to the presence of the British fleet on 21 August when radio messages from the carriers were detected."
    • That's a big improvement, thanks Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "500 pounds (230 kg) bombs" - I suspect there's a convert template that needs the |adj=on parameter
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd link to armor-piercing shot and shell in the 24 August section
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Might it be worthwhile to include a photo of Tirpitz in the article?
    • Aerial photo of her mooring added Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it odd that historians have concluded that the Barracudas weren't capable of carrying bombs large enough to sink or otherwise incapacitate the ship, given that the Germans themselves concluded that had the 1,600lb bomb that hit the ship on 24 August exploded, the damage would have been severe. Just a general comment though, nothing for you to address. Great work on the article! Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That is a good point, though the RN also apparently came to the same conclusion. I suspect that the issue is that due to the strength of the defences and slow speed of the Barracudas, the best that could be hoped for from FAA attacks was one or two lucky hits per raid, and the 1,600 bombs couldn't be relied up on to inflict enough damage in such small numbers. The USN also found that it really needed to pound the modern Japanese battleships when carrier based aircraft were used. The fact that a glancing hit from a Tallboy bomb in September 1944 was enough to cripple Tirpitz after repeated attacks from carrier aircraft didn't badly damage her says a lot about the superiority of heavy bombers in this role. @Parsecboy: thanks a lot for the review, and sorry that it took me a few days to respond. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images all have Alt Text [3] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • One duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • HMS_Victorious_(R38)
        • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
      • Brown (1977), p. 37 (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Roskill (1961), p. 160 (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Roskill_160 (Multiple references are using the same name)
        • All fixed
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a website with material that appears to have been copied from wikipedia) [4] (no action req'd)
    • Maybe wikilink "capital ship" to explain what one is?
      • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps vary language here to avoid repeated word "force / forced": "To counter this threat, the Allies were forced to keep a powerful force..."
      • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Repeated word "detected" here: "The German forces in Norway first detected the British fleet on 21 August, when radio messages from the aircraft carriers were detected." Consider something like: "The German forces in Norway first detected the British fleet on 21 August, when radio messages from the aircraft carriers were intercepted."
    • Agree an image of Tirpitz would be good if available.
      • Both fixed as above Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.