Talk:Joint Chiefs of Staff Readiness Test

What exactly is the subject of this article...notes from preliminary NPP review

Notes from preliminary NPP review. What exactly is the subject of this article...maybe it should be merged or renamed? There's a section with the same name as the article and it says the main article is Operation Giant Lance. The opening sentences of this article imply that there was a distinct broader readiness test, but there is nothing more about such a thing in the article. Instead it seems to be a general discussion of many different background areas related to Operation Giant Lance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This critique is not clear .The subject of this article is as it says: The Joint Chiefs of Staff Readiness Test, which was a distinct event that should be described and discussed.. Giant Lance was only one element in the story of the Readiness Test, which was quite complex and included numerous naval and air elements as described.

With respect to subsequent comments: This article is not an “original argument” about a topic but draws on interpretations and detailed research that have been presented by such historians as Jeffrey Kimball and William Burr. If it is argumentative, please give examples.

Concerning the balance of primary and secondary sources, what is the problem with citing original documents on the topic? There are only a few secondary sources on the Readiness Test so if the commentator can provide some additional sources that would be helpful.

If there is a need for “copy editing” please give examples. Atomic researcher (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear North 8000

Thank you for paying attention to my article on the JCS Readiness Test. I wish you would expand on your critique. .The subject of this article is as it says: The Joint Chiefs of Staff Readiness Test, which was a distinct event that should be described and discussed.. Giant Lance was only one element in the story of the complex Readiness Test, which included numerous naval and air elements as described.

This article is not an “original argument” about a topic but draws on interpretations and detailed research that have been presented by such historians as Jeffrey Kimball and William Burr. If it is argumentative, please give examples.

Concerning the balance of primary and secondary sources, what is the problem with citing original documents on the topic? There are only a few secondary sources on the Readiness Test so if the commentator can provide some additional sources that would be helpful.

If there is a need for “copy editing” please give examples.

Thank you. Atomic Researcher

Atomic researcher (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]