Talk:Operation Catechism/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 09:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:

suggest mentioning the squadrons in the lead
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the lead needs more information about the prep and attack, it is a bit sparse on this actual operation, has enough on the earlier operations
- I've added some more detail - how does this look? Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link Arctic convoys of World War II
- It's linked in the background section Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link Soviet Union, as it doesn't exist anymore and more and more readers will not be familiar
- Hmm, this seems like over-linking to me. I think that the USSR is still likely to be well known? Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This attack had been timed for when it was believed repairs to rectify the damage caused in Operation Tungsten were nearing completion" doesn't make sense, as it is describing Operation Tungsten. Is something missing?
- Oops, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "series of subsequent aircraft carrier attacks were unsuccessful, including Operation Mascot on 17 July and Operation Goodwood between 22–29 August 1944."
- Done, but I'll revisit this ahead of an ACR to see if I can improve the wording further. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
was responsibility transferred from Bomber Command to RN then back to Bomber Command? If so, suggest stating this in the narrative
- I haven't seen a source saying that there was an official transfer of responsibility for attacking the ship from the RAF to the RN in 1942/43 (as half-baked plans to attack the ship with bombers, including USAAF B-17s, kept being cooked up), but multiple sources say that such a transfer took place in 1944. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
was the Johnnie Walker a mine or a bomb?
- A mine. I've recently found enough sources to put together an article on this odd weapon. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest giving the weight of the Tallboy when first mentioned
"an immobile battery to defend the area from attack" from what sort of attack? air or surface?
Tallboy (bomb) is duplinked
- Oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link Naval Intelligence Division (United Kingdom)
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps "if she was left alone"→"if she was left unmolested"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link de Havilland Mosquito
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
move link to No. 5 Group RAF to first mention
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what RAF airfields did the two squadrons fly from on the day of the operation?
torpedo net is duplinked
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
typo Tirptiz
- It wouldn't be one of this series of articles without me making and failing to fix that typo! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "Weber believed that within three weeks the days would be short enough to prevent further air attacks."
"A total of 32 Lancasters were dispatched" and two didn't make it in time, but in the lead it says 29 heavy bombers?
- The force comprised 31 Lancasters operating as bombers (of which two failed to attack) and another Lancaster serving as film aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"headed to the USSR" USSR hasn't been introduced, suggest sticking to Soviet Union
- Done Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"09:44 BST"→" 09:44 am BST"
"No 9 Squadron"→"No. 9 Squadron"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"09:45 BST"→"09:45 am BST"
"9:49 BST"→"09:49 am BST"
"11:00 BST"→"11:00 am BST"
perhaps the way to deal with all this time stuff is to introduce BST in 24-hour clock rather than am/pm, then say local time was equivalent to BST (as you've done), then just use 24-hour clock thereafter?
- I've standardised on 'am' as, oddly enough, all the action takes place in the morning. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
for "interned by the Swedish Government" link internment
link repatriation
- Linked both Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The loss of Tirpitz was a disaster for the German forces in northern Norway" seems a stretch given she wasn't capable to putting to sea, does anyone else say this?
link court martial
- Linked Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "not possible for German naval personnel to pass information directly to their Luftwaffe..."
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
link Director of Naval Construction
- Done Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hinsley et al. and Zetterling et al. were consulted but not used?
- I've used Zetterling this evening. From memory, Hinsley ran out of steam on the attack at about this point - removed. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
all the image licenses look fine to me
- Thanks for checking this Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest changing the result in the infobox to "destruction of the Tirpitz"
- I think that the current result is clearer. The losses field notes that a battleship was destroyed. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
McMullen is listed in the infobox, but not mentioned in the body
- Removed. I can't find a RS saying he commanded the attack force on the ground, though I think he did. Tait seems to have dominated this operation to a greater degree than he had the previous Lancaster attacks. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest changing British airmen in the lead to Commonwealth airmen, as there were quite a few Canadian, Australian and New Zealand airmen in the two squadrons
- Done Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review, and your excellent comments. I'll follow up on it tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm a bit delayed in responding due to other commitments taking up my free time. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Peacemaker67: I've belatedly responded to all your comments, I think. Thanks very much for this review. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GraemeLeggett

The lede lacks some context. Why is the Tirpitz a target? The second paragraph tells us that it's been attacked many times before but until the reader gets to Background it's a bit of a mystery. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett: Thanks for your comment Graeme, I've added a brief summary to the lead covering this. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]