Talk:Operation Bodenplatte/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I'm working on reviewing this article over the phone with a non-Wikipedian who's a walking encyclopedia on all things WWII, and who also has professional article reviewing experience. The review is by me but throughout it you'll see me refer to his opinions.

I think it's got a lot of good info and is well done, neutral, with good referencing--but a lot of work is still needed. Primarily, my buddy and I think that there's a huge amount of detail and the overall general concepts are being neglected. Either they're lost in with all the detail or they go unmentioned.

Some general comments before I go through section by section:

The article is too long and excessively detailed. We are going to have to go through and make some tough decisions about detail to cut out.
Throughout the article, there's a lot of 'fluff' wording, wording that you could leave out and the sentence would still make sense--unnecessary words and clauses that are implied by the context or the rest of what you say. I've been going through and removing some instances, you can check the history if you like. Try these exercises. I'd recommend a read through to try to find and remove unnecessary wording.
Define your abbreviations when you first use them.
Sometimes foreign words are in italics and sometimes not. Make them consistent.
The article is difficult to read with all the German and the abbreviations (especailly in the Battle section). I think you should use English terms wherever possible. I've been going through and changing where it's 'German word (English translation)'. I think it's better to have 'English (German)' if you need the German at all. I think for example using 'fighter' instead of Jagdgeschwader would make the article much easier for an English speaker to read.
Abbreviations aren't always consistent. For example, with Sint-Truiden, 'sint' is used inconsistently. Sometimes there's a period, sometimes a dash, sometimes nothing.

Lead

The reader gets kind of bogged down in all the detail and deviations. For example, would it be ok to remove the translations in this sentence? The Germans husbanded their resources in the preceding months at the expense of the Defence of the Reich units in what was a last-ditch effort to keep up the momentum of the German Army (German: Heer) during the stagnant stage of the Battle of the Bulge (German: Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein). This is too much for the introduction.
You might want to make more explicit at the end of the lead what it meant to lose airplanes vs. losing airmen. i.e. the pilots were a much more important resource so losing pilots was a bigger hit for Germany. Maybe just a brief mention after ...Moreover, the nature of the operation meant the Allies lost few airmen, because the airplanes were destroyed on the ground without pilots.

Background

I think the background section is too long. I think the Big Blow section should be reduced to a few sentences and integrated into the rest. Consider making a spinoff article and leaving a summary here per WP:SUMMARY.

This sentence is too difficult and convoluted: The Royal Air Force's (RAF) Second Tactical Air Force, under the command of Air Marshal Arthur Coningham, directed its No. 2 Group RAF, No. 83 Group RAF, No. 84 Group RAF and No. 85 Group RAF, to provide constant ground support to the Allied Armies. Could it be reworded to have a list like 'RAF groups 2, 83, 84, and 85'? Just to have less repetition. And for a lay reader like me, it isn't really clear what a 'Group RAF' is.

I think this sentence needs further explanation: As the ground forces moved up, the Allied tactical and strategic air forces followed. First, maybe clarify where is 'up'. Next, this is an important point: They are taking airfields as soon as they were becoming available to save gas and shorten commute times, right? So they were moving into these exposed locations.

This sentence kind of comes out of the blue and leaves the reader lost: Air wings based in the Netherlands, Belgium and France could keep offering that same support over Germany proper. How is it related to the first sentence? Are you trying to say "therefore the attack was strategic because the airfields were vulnerable, but even so air wings based in the Netherlands, Belgium and France could keep offering the support lost in the attack over Germany proper"?

Sometimes there are refs in the middle of paras, sometimes they're at the end. When a ref is at the end, am I to understand that it covers everything in the para? I would put the ref after every sentence it covers--it's bulkier but more flexible--it lets you add or move stuff later. These sentences have numerical stats and thus need refs: On the eight days of operations, between the 17 to 27 December 1944, some 644 fighters were lost and 227 damaged. This resulted in 322 pilots killed, 23 captured and 133 wounded. On the three days of operations, 23 to 25 December 1944, some 363 fighters were destroyed. If the ref at the end of the para covers it, you might want to at least put that in hidden tags so you or others can move it later.

The "Big Blow"

The background secion is kind of hard to follow because it mixes info from before and after the attack. I like the summary, it's definitely needed, but is there a way to move the summary info so the background section is just background? e.g. the whole para starting "Following the operation..." (not to mention that doesn't really have to do with the Big Blow). Could we do away with this para altogether? Or at least put it in aftermath. Does the Big Blow really need a section of its own? Or could it be pared down and incorporated into the rest of background?

Operation codenames

~~Again, this is not background.~~ Could this be done away with altogether? This is the kind of detail the article is full of and that I consider excessive. If the codenames are used somewhere, you can bring this up then, but I say get rid of this section entirely.

The plan

What does 'superiority' mean here? ...to commence plans for a ground attack and air superiority operations over the Ardennes. I took it out; if it means something you can replace it if you add some clarification.
This has been said before in the background section: Preparations were to be complete by 27 November, and to be carried out on the first day of the offensive. However, weather conditions blocked any large-scale operations. I think it actually makes more sense here, maybe you can shorten it out of the background.
What does the second part of this sentence have to do with the first? The previous sentence was about how they were down because of the weather. Maybe break into two sentences? It was, therefore, not launched until 1 January 1945 in an attempt to help regain the momentum of the struggling Panzer Army supporting the second phase of the offensive, Operation North Wind.

The plan of Bodenplatte called for a surprise attack against 16 Allied air bases in Belgium, the Netherlands, and one base at Metz, in France. Does this mean there were 15 in Belgium and the Netherlands and one in France? Or 16 in Belgium and the Netherlands and an additional one in France?

In a major oversight, the planners had set flight paths which took many units over some of the most heavily defended areas on the Continent; namely the V2 launch sites around The Hague. 'Oversight' has two meanings so might be a little confusing here. 'Maybe gaffe'? 'Blunder'? Or reword to use 'overlook' instead?

I think this is excessive detail but my buddy doesn't, so you can decide whether to keep or excise: At the turn of 1944/45 Air Command West had 267 heavy and 277 medium or light anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) batteries, and in addition to this there were 100 Kriegsmarine (Navy) AAA batteries along the Dutch coast. The path of most of these lay in the sector of the 16th AAA Division, with its control station at Doetinchem, 15 miles east of Arnhem.

I think the para starting Another problem was the fact that many of the Luftwaffe pilots were very poor marksmen and lacked flight skills is too detailed, but again my buddy doesn't. Really I think it could be reduced to a couple sentences about how fuel, instructors and training facilities were severely limited (and you could integrate it into the previous para).

This is not a good topic sentence for the para beginning "Exacerbating an already significant series of problems, the plan called for the units to maintain strict radio/wireless silence and secrecy in order to maintain surprise." The rest of the para is about maps and the pilots being ill-prepared.

That's all I got now. My buddy and I are going to go through the next few sections tomorrow or Monday, it will probably take us a while to get through the whole thing, but you can get started working on this set of suggestions. Definitely let me know if you have anything to discuss about any of this. delldot ∇. 19:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: delldot ∇. 19:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's a way to make citations from the references link to their books in the Bibliography section, see for example prenatal cocaine exposure. I can help you implement this if you decide you want to. delldot ∇. 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Comment

Oh dear. We have a problem.

General Comment

I’m definitely opposed to the removal of detail. To be honest, if the article starts getting massacred I’d rather leave it at B class. I certainly don’t agree in the slightest that the overall point is being lost; I believe that the plan sections are fine in length and summation. Bodenplatte’s overall intention can be summed up very swiftly, and all that remains is the detail. In once sense more detail is being demanded, yet in another is to be removed. How can I expand on a background that already has everything in it? I do not accept that English terms should be used, in military articles on aces the German words are always used – after one example and conversion has been given. Another user has also pointed out a good reason for the use of German terms[1]

The other points I can live with. With reard to article length: I have already created two separate articles to deal with excess detail, so I'm struggling to see other ways in which I can cut down the detail.

Ok, neither of us wants to struggle over this, let's just work on improving the article. You can take my advice or leave it, and in the end we can come to an agreement or leave it as a B--I applaud your greater concern for article quality than for shiny stickers. I'm happy to listen to your views when you disagree that stuff should be removed. Let's both try to approach this without defensiveness, we both want this article to be as good as it can be. BTW, do you happen to know the readable prose size? The tool I used to use for finding it is down and I can't get anything else to work. delldot ∇. 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, sorry. With regard to content, I'll figure something out. Dapi89 (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked around. It appears to by 60kb. Articles that are +60kbs are acceptable if they are large in scope (I think this one is). Dapi89 (talk)

Yeah, that's pretty good! We should probably aim for about 50, but this is definitely not bad. delldot ∇. 20:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article cannot be reduced to 50. It would just look silly. GA articles are and can reach 80kb (inclusive of refs and citations of course. Dapi89 (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a check. Without the biliography, cites and external links it gets to about 77. I think this is the best I can do. Dapi89 (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I don’t believe the abbreviations are too much. I see GA articles and above with this kind of thing all the time. And an article with such length would look awkward to say the least with a painfully short introduction while being generous in length. I appreciate that it could be better worded. I agree, I’ll make the fact pilots were more precious.

Most readers are going to be reading this for the first time and don't already know what it's trying to say. Admittedly I'm a WWII novice, but my buddy felt the same way about the abbreviations. But just making the uses consistent would help a lot. delldot ∇. 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I agree it could be shortened. I’ll do that. I’ll sort out wording issues. If a ref is in the middle of a sentence it because the information is not contained in the paragraph and needs insertion. If you think it needs to be at the end, that fine.

One of my big concerns with the background section was it wasn't all background--some paras were dealing with during the strike and the aftermath.

I'm not sure if I communicated the ref thing well--I was asking you, did you mean for a ref that's at the end of a para to cover everything in the para? I don't have a problem with mid-sentence refs, but some at FAC do. delldot ∇. 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But where I have included an inline citation mid-sentence means it was not in the end-of-para citations and is inserted. Dapi89 (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Its been reworded. Hop this is sufficient. Dapi89 (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Blow

Can be shortened and simplified.

Operation codenames

No. There is much controversy and myth about this operation. It needs a title so it stands out and is clear. Mixing it with the background is just going to look confusing. I think a better idea is to move it under “The plan” section.

My bad, I must have been thinking that the codenames section was in the background section (and yeah, that would not have worked). delldot ∇. 01:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the plan section tomorrow. Dapi89 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related FAs include Battle of Midway, British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, Convoy GP55, Omaha Beach, Panzer I. We can look at these when questions of how things should be done come up (e.g. do they use English or German words?) Some of these have been featured for a while, though, so may not reflect current practices. delldot ∇. 01:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to look at German air articles? Werner Mölders, Heinrich Bär, Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945), Jagdgeschwader 1. Dapi89 (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those are better. I just hadn't noticed them in the brief look I did. It looks like they use the German, so we can revert the changes I made from German to English. delldot ∇. 20:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review format

Would it be possible to use this format, so it is possible to see what has been done and what if anything can be done to assist. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sure, I can do that if it would be helpful. Let me get through the detailed reading first. So far it looks like the only problems are with 1 and 3. delldot ∇. 06:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with 3. However, I appreciate the writing needs clarity. I'll go over all that. Dapi89 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut some more detail from the article. It is now at 69kb. I think this is an acceptable target considering the amount of detail cut. The detail that is there now is virtually the bare minimum. If this is still not acceptable, then I don't think an agreement can be reached. Dapi89 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll have another close look as soon as I can and give feedback. Don't worry too much about it, I'm sure we'll figure something out we're both happy with. I'll look over the cuts you made as soon as I can and let you know what I think. I'll try to get together with my buddy again this afternoon. I'm not trying to make you take a hatchet to the article, detail per se is ok, there was just a lot of detail I thought was unimportant. But you are right that the info will determine the size of the article. delldot ∇. 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Dapi89 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, refs and bibliography don't count in the readable prose size, so no need to make cuts to them (no need to undo anything either, just so you know). Tables, lists, captions, and that kind of thing also don't count.

OK. Great, thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the cuts you've made so far I think they're great. The language is tighter, it looks to me like it makes sense to have cut the detail you've cut. I haven't reread the whole thing yet though. delldot ∇. 14:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear! I'll awaitg further comments. Dapi89 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reread

I reread the sections I had left comments on before, and I think they're much better: clearer, more direct, easier to read. It might be partly due to the fact that I'd read and understood it before, but really I think they're much improved. I'll try to leave a new set of comments this afternoon. delldot ∇. 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad things are moving along. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My buddy agrees it's hugely improved. He says "it's nice as it can be now!" I got the prose size tool working (for reasons that are completely mysterious to me) and it tells me the prose size is 62, readable prose size is 41. So that's perfect, no more cutting is necessary for purposes of size. (Obviously the focus of the article could require adding or subtracting of detail, but that seems ok to me so far). delldot ∇. 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work guys. Does anyone else have a problem with saying that France had been "liberated"? The term is completely accurate ... certainly if France is once again controlled by the French, then it's been liberated ... but in general, the term isn't neutral (it strongly suggests which "side you're on"). I don't have an opinion, just throwing this out. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. "Liberated" from illegal occupation forces I believe is neutral. It is a term often used in this sense. I have no particular opinion either. I'll leave up to the reviewer. Dapi89 (talk)

I think it's ok, but it might make it even clearer to say something like 'the Allies had retaken..." delldot ∇. 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Dapi89 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next installment

Here's our thoughts on the next few sections:

Targets

Minor thing: The table looks good, but I wonder if there's a more neutral word than 'enemy' in the table. Maybe 'Allied force'? If nothing else works, 'enemy' is ok.

Forces involved

There shouldn't be an empty section, can this link be incorporated elsewhere in the article so we can do away with the header?

German Communication

This sentence is a repeat of information that's already in The Plan: The anti-aircraft batteries (described above) knew of the operation but the passage of information was inadequate. Only a small number of the batteries knew at what time the German formations would fly over their front. (in The Plan, the paragraph says, Some had been warned about the operation but were not kept up to date with developments about changing timetables and the flight plan of German formations. As a result many of the German fighter units lost aircraft to "friendly fire" before the attacks could be initiated.) I think it would be a good idea to reference the info from the other section, just to jog the reader's memory, but you really only need to explain it at length in one or the other section.

In the following sections about each of the targets, these sections are incredibly repetitive with a ton of unfamiliar abbreviations. It occurs to me that all the info about types of aircraft, what units they're from, aircraft lost, pilots lost, etc. would be better in a table. (Then you could link the first abbreviation, too). It could be like: Target, divisions assigned to it, German aircraft destroyed, aircraft damaged, pilots killed, pilots MIA, pilots wounded. Then the same info for allied losses (or a new table with those data). That way readers who don't want that level of detail can get the basic idea from a summary in the prose that points to the table. You could have one big table or a small table for each target. That way it would be more interesting to read the prose because you don't have to go through the same thing with each sentence: "this is how many Fws were available, this is how many pilots were ready, this is how many they lost..." etc.

If you hate that idea, here's specific critiques of the prose for the next few sections.

Maldegem, Ursel and St. Denis Westrem

'Stab' is used here for the first time, new terms need an explanation when they're introduced.
I added the word 'friendly' to the sentence I./JG 1 lost four of their number to AAA fire--please revert me if that assumption was incorrect.
I got confused here Casualties could have been heavier, had the AAA defences of Maldegem airfield not been removed. The rest of the para before this sentence is talking about losing planes to friendly AAA fire. But this has to be Allied AAA fire that you're talking about. Can you clarify this?
With this sentence, can the location be clarified? I./JG 1 claimed 30 Spitfires on the ground and two shot down. The next sentence is about Maldegem and Ursel, so where are we talking about in this one?
This sentence kind of switches tune: On Maldegem 16 aircraft were destroyed and at Ursel only six were lost. in the first part, they're destroyed, in the second they're lost. We're talking about the enemy aircraft they destroyed in both parts, right?
The whole latter part of this paragraph is very confusing: I./JG 1 claimed 30 British Spitfires on the ground and two shot down. On Maldegem 16 aircraft were destroyed and at Ursel only six were lost. This solitary claim is more inline with Allied losses on both airfields. At Maldegem No. 135 Wing RAF lost 13 Spitfires plus two damaged beyond repair.[35] In total 15 Spitfires were lost at Maldegem. At Ursel, a B-17 two Lancaster’s and the Mosquito, the only machines there, were lost. The German loss of 16 aircraft and 12 pilots was not a good return.[36] First we hear about 30, then we hear about 16 + 6. What is the 'solitary' claim, and what does 'solitary' mean? If there are multiple claims, who claimed the 16 + 6?
With that same paragraph, I think it would help to clarify who is making the claims. The uses of "lost" and "destroyed" should be made consistent (I'd go with 'destroyed' unless you're explicitly saying Allied forces are making the claims. (So it would read, e.g., "15 Spitfires were destroyed. British forces claimed they lost 13...")
I think it's good that you break up the paras into Maldegem/Ursel and St. Denis. But it's hard to follow with the quick transitioning from German losses to their successes. In the last para, it switches back and forth to and from what they lost and what they shot down. I think it would be easier if you would pick a consistent pattern and present each para the same way: the first half what they destroyed and the second half what they lost (or vice versa, whichever works best).

Sint-Truiden

I can't make any sense of this sentence: Stab./SG 4 three Fw 190s and two pilots. Also, is there supposed to be a period after Stab? This should be made consistent throughout the article.
All the info about the specific kinds of aircraft is pretty incomprehensible. As a layperson, what am I supposed to do with the fact that such and such a number of the craft were 190D-9s, or 109G-14s, when I don't know what one of those is? Is there at least a list article you can link to that would expand on what each of these things is? If not, wouldn't that mean this info is super obscure?
I added 'Allied' to this sentence, please revert me if the assumption is incorrect: At 09:12 JG 2 crossed the front line at Malmedy and was greeted by an enormous volume of Allied AAA fire.

Volkel and Heesch

This sentence doesn't seem to make sense: I and III./JG 6 were to attack while III./JG 6 was to provide cover against Allied fighters. What happened to II?

Does 'scrambled' mean something specific that could be put into layperson's terms? No. 401 Squadron scrambled.
There's the mixing up of 'lost' and 'shot down' that I was complaining about above here too: A further Hawker Typhoon was lost, but no Hawker Tempests were shot down or damaged.
Since it's been so long since you've used the abbreviation KG, it might help to jog the reader's memory here: Stab./KG 6 lost the Kommodore, Kogel as a POW...

Refs

Minor point: per WP:DASH, page ranges (like all numerical ranges) should be separated with an n dash (–).

That's all I got for now, we're planning on getting back together in a day or two. delldot ∇. 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you think it is all repetitive, unfortunately there is little other way to describe air-to-air combat. It’s an issue with all air related (and ace) articles. Anyone who bothers to look this up are going to people with some interest, and I think they will appreciate it.

I'll correct the text for each section. I don't think a table is a good idea. I have tabled losses in the casualties section which were moved because they ate up space. They give specific losses re: individual aircraft/pilots. It’s too much for the main article and I can't think of a sensible layout for a table that dealt with the general loss - victory figures.

The Target section has a link to the Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933-1945) which explains abbrevs. I'll explain more thoroughly. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I done most of it. Just sorting bits and pieces. I think it is crystal clear now. Dapi89 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The table idea is not something I would fail the article over, but I would still advocate for putting at least some of the data into a table. If you find yourself repeating the same information in slightly different wording in every paragraph, you might be presenting info that belongs in a table. So many of the sentences are basically embellished versions of this: "Target: Units: Number and types of aircraft: Number of pilots: Number shot down: Number damaged: ..." I'm not saying to leave nothing in the sections, but if the sections consisted of the other info that wouldn't belong in a table they'd be more interesting. And the tabulated info would be quicker and easier to find. It might actually be cool to have a little box to the right in each section with the info I mentioned above (number of planes lost, etc.). I'm picturing something like this. Then you could decide if and how much to repeat the same info in the prose. delldot ∇. 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I'll do that then. What I failed to do earlier was to explain that it might complicate matters by having just tables in sections. I read somewhere that articles that are purely/largely statistical are not liked. Dapi89 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sections that have pictures. The layout will be messed up a bit. I don't htink it will look right. Dapi89 (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture layout could be tweaked if it looks bad. I never worry about the picture layout while the article is undergoing work because it always ends up drastically different anyway. But it's up to you. delldot ∇. 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last sections

Antwerp-Deurne and Woensdrecht

These two sentences are confusing together: ... just 12 aircraft were destroyed. Only 14 Allied aircraft were destroyed and nine damaged. if it's saying the 12 is a subset and the 14 is a grand total, can that be clarified? Also, I'm noticing throughout these sections that it's not made clear who's doing the estimating, and those numbers differ. So if that's the reason for the disparity, just make clear who's making the estimates: ... the Germans claimed that just 12 aircraft were destroyed. According to the Allies, only 14 Allied aircraft were destroyed and nine damaged.

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of the same thing: JG 77 lost 11 Bf 109s and their pilots were lost. Six were killed and five captured. German records show the loss of ten pilots, but only four are listed as captured. Who's making the claim in the first section, the Allies? In that case it should be made explicit. If they're both German claims, what's the reason for the disparity?

Done Dapi89 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metz-Frescaty

There's a number missing in this sentence, after 'claimed': On the way home at 09:20, III./JG 53 were intercepted by 366th Fighter Squadron which claimed destroyed and three damaged for a solitary P-47.
The raid on Etain was a total failure. Wait, why are we talking about Etain now? We were just talking about Metz-Frescaty. Is this a new location? Or an alternate name?
It's better not to start a sentence with a numeral if you can avoid it: 13 pilots were missing; three were killed, six remain missing as of today, and four were captured.

Done. I've cleared out the unneeded data, fixed it so it makes sense and eliminated Etain from the section - it was only a part of the main complex. It doesn't need to be there. Dapi89 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Le Culot and Ophoven

Le Culot was undamaged. This is referring to the airfield itself?

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asch

can you say 'fully operational pilots'? It sounds weird to me.
so other Staffel made up the numbers. -- I don't think the word Staffel has been introduced yet.

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels-Evere/Grimbergen

The caption seems to start using new nomenclature: of 10./JG54. As far as we've seen heretofore, it's always a roman numeral like II/JG54.
These two sentences don't make sense in context: In total II./JG 26 suffered 13 Fw 190s lost and two damaged. The amount of damaged made up for the losses. I think you're saying in the second sentence "the amount of enemy aircraft damaged made up for their own losses" but since it's switching subjects so abruptly that's not clear.
Is Recce Wings supposed to be capitalized here? The Recce Wings had lost two entire squadrons worth of machines.

Done. The number is used for staffel, numeral for Group. I usually like using 10.III./JG 54 to explain the difference. Its effective and easy, but official German units make a distinction only in the number/numeral.

Done.

Recce is slang for reconnaissance. Dapi89 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilze-Rijen and Eindhoven.

this sentence doesn't add up: Some 15 pilots were missing; nine were killed and five captured
This still seems too detailed to me: Another source gives 41 aircraft destroyed, 24 slightly damaged and 19 severely damaged, six of which were beyond repair. Does it have to be this specific with the severity of damaged, or could it just give number destroyed and number damaged? And what's the difference between damaged beyond repair and destroyed?

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath and casualties

This sentence doesn't make sense: Additionally, while it was supposed to "revive" the offensive, it could have preceded the Ardennes attack, without the need to rely on weather.
Say who you're quoting here: aircraft and pilots were irreplaceable, leaving the Germans "weaker than ever and incapable of mounting any major attack again". If it's some obscure person, consider paraphrasing rather than quoting.
Why the quotation marks here? Are you quoting someone? If so, give them credit: Additionally, while it was supposed to "revive" the offensive, it could have preceded the Ardennes attack
Again, give credit: In strategic terms, "Operation Bodenplatte amounted to a total defeat".
Werner Girbig wrote, "it was not until the autumn of 1944 that--Good that you gave credit here, but since the guy doesn't have an article you may want to introduce him: Historian Werner Girbig or Noted author Werner Girbig

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

There's still the problem where Stab sometimes has a period and sometimes does not throughout the article. The use should be consistent.

I don't understand what you mean by this one. Dapi89 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So for example, sometimes it has a period, e.g. Stab./JG 2 had three Fw 190s ready for the mission; Stab., II., III., and IV./JG 53 were available. Sometimes it doesn't: Stab and II./JG 6 stumbled on another strip at Helmond; Stab and I./JG 1 lost 13 Fw 190s. Does the period mean something? If so it may need to be more explicit. If not, you should choose whether to have it with a period every time or without one every time. delldot ∇. 21:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how it is used. I'll make it consistent though. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also about consistency: Sometimes ordinal numbers have a 'th' after them, e.g. 358th Fighter Group, sometimes not.

Done. Appears to be Okay now. Dapi89 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

references are inconsistent, I've been changing all the p104 and p.104 to p. 104. I know for medical articles MOS says to use this format: pp. 124–25. I bet it's the same for milhist articles.

Done. On one or two it created format problems and an error message came up. So I've kept those. Dapi89 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Casualties and losses section of the infobox, why not put the totals as best they can be estimated? You could put 'est.' or some such if the concern is exactness.

I thought it would be too long, and it would be better to direct people to the Aftermath and Casualty article. Dapi89 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is for a brief summary, for people who want info at a glance. What about Germans: pilots killed and missing: 143 captured: 70 and wounded: 21. But are there totals for Allied pilots? delldot ∇. 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reply to each point right under it--it might make it easier to track each one. delldot ∇. 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not too crazy about the empty subsection, Forces involved. I think it might help the reader to get just a sentence or two outlining the order of battle. Like "The German order of battle consisted of Jagdgeschwader 1, 3, 6, 26, 27..." (if you can say it that way). That way they would have a bit of context for the next several sections when they're told Jagdgeschwader so-and-so was assigned to this or that target. delldot ∇. 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged it with the target section although I have seen FA with this format. I think things might ger repetitive if I list the JG's and targets here, as well as in the main battle section, and yet again in the results table. Dapi89 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I think perhaps another column added the table in the said section might be ok. ok? Dapi89 (talk)

Sure, that's fine. By the way, have you seen this picture? Figured I'd point it out in case you hadn't seen it and wanted to use it. delldot ∇. 16:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Saw it. It's too small for my liking though. Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving it a final read-through and it looks good. Minor stuff: in the table under Results of raid you should decide whether you want to put a period at the end of the sentences and make that consistent. delldot ∇. 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dapi89 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All images are good as far as copyright. delldot ∇. 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pass. Here's the requested rundown:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It could still use some copy editing, there are some choppy sentences and there's some repetitiveness we've discussed in the targets sections, but I'm sure you will keep working on it. Maybe you could offer another GAN nominee to exchange copy edits. But on the whole this is well written.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think the cutting you've done since this review began have improved the article massively. I'm really pleased with the focus and level of detail now. I still think the lay reader may not be as interested in the detail about each type of airplane as the writers are though! But really excellent work.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Great work! delldot ∇. 00:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. Thanks. Dapi89 (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]