Talk:Operation Copperhead/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 12:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I will use the template below to assess the article against the criteria. Please mark your edits on the review page as Done when they are addressed. If there are any issues please let me know here or at my talk page. Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 12:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Another factor was that, in early May, an uncontrolled agent based in Spain (who sold fictional intelligence to the Germans) had passed on details of a meeting in Gibraltar between several high-ranking Allied officers. Documents found after the war indicated the Germans found this information suspect, and that they might have treated Montgomery's appearance as equally so." Reference this please, also, it seems a bit like original research, especially the "they might have treated Montgomery's appearance as equally so" bit.

- Well, it is referenced in the normal style... but I have added a further inline citation to make this clear. Have you read the source? "seems like original research" is not helpful feedback unless you can communicate how I have improperly interpreted the source. :) Levine describes (in some detail, actually, and as part of his analysis of this op.) how this agent communicated such a meeting to Axis intelligence some days before James landed. He then describes how it was marked "deception?? who knows?" by said intelligence agency. And goes on to explain (as I then do) that the picture was so confusing for the Germans at this point they could not unpick what was deception and what was real information. If you have suggestions for rephrasing this to address your concern then that would be helpful. --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"James did not enjoy the experience. Although he received equivalent pay (£10 per day) to Montgomery during the operation, it was a high-pressure assignment. Following Montgomery's public appearance on the Western Front, James was flown back to England and the Pay Corps with a warning to keep quiet." Could you rewrite this so it has a more encyclopedic tone? And can you reference it aswell please.

- It's unclear to me where the problem lies with this paragraph. Could you be more explicit? This is already cited to Holt & Levine. --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is "a warning to keep quiet" Rewrite that part please ★★Retro Lord ★★ 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Errant ^(chat!) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it on hold and see what we can fix. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 02:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"in his own uniform" Could you make this clearer? A bit confusing I'm not sure how unclear it is, but I have rephrased it to mention he was out of character (which is what was being communicated) --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Done[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	" in the midst of a confusing array of Allied deception activities." Could we remove confusing here? Done --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "It was later made into a film, with James in the starring role." Perhaps change to, "It was later adapted into a film"? Done --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Could you change this in the lead aswell? Not done Done now done --Errant ^(chat!) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "perfect duplicate of the Field Marshal" Could you rewrite without "perfect duplicate"? I can't think of a suitable way to rephrase this without being long winded. Suggestions? --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Ok Done[reply] "Allied deceivers used their" Change deciever to spy? No, as this would be incorrect. --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Done What exactly is a deceiver and does it differ from a spy? I did a wikipedia search for it and I couldn't see anything applicable, do we have an article on it? They were not spies; they did not undertake espionage or other forms of intelligence gathering - quite the opposite. "Deceivers" is overwhelmingly the term used within the scholarly literature to refer to the diverse group of people involved in military deception - including intelligence officers, civilian staff, military staff officers and other military personnel (wireless operators through to camofleurs). It's a term I am bringing into consistent use within this topic area on Wikipedia, in line with the literature. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "about his exploits." Change to experiences please Done Rephrased --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] " held in high regard by" Is this true? Perhaps change to something along the lines of, they respected his military command skill, i dont think they were his biggest fans at OKW or OKH (german high commands) Done Rephrased. Although they certainly held him in the same light we viewed Rommel. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] " starring role" lead role? Done Fixed --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "It was obvious" Obvious to who? Allied supreme headquarters? Seems like a bit of a redundant statement to me. The germans thought it was "obvious" that patton would take part in the invasion also(he didnt). Ref this specifically or remove it please. And if you do ref it, Probably reword the obvious bit. Done Sure, but the Allies knew Patton's strengths lay in breaking out from a bridgehead, where Montgomery was skilled in establishing beach heads. In fact, the Allies used the fact they did not need Patton immediately, AND the fact that OKW expected him to be present, to construct the most elaborate deception of the war (Bodyguard). But I can't go into such detail in this article :) However, I've reworded it; the point isn't to emphasise that Montgomery was expected to be at D-Day, but to explain why the operation was considered useful. If OKW hadn't expected Monty to be present at D-Day it would make no sense ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] " future Army films" Capitalised Army why? Done Army isnt a proper noun in this case? Fixed --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] " Although he received equivalent pay (£10 per day) to Montgomery during the operation, it was a high-pressure assignment." Could you please rewrite this sentence, the two concepts arent really related. Sentence implies that because he was paid so much he shouldnt have found it to be "highpressure". Done I'd agree, except Levine makes this direct link, saying: "The fact that he recieved Montgomery pay [...] was no compensation for the pressure." --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	" A second likeness was found, but soon afterwards was injured in an accident" Reference this please It is referenced. To Casey & Holt. --Errant ^(chat!) 05:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Are you putting references before or after statements? Done Generally I will place references after the sentence or paragraph in which it supports the material. If several sentences come from the same source I will not repeat references - this is a common style on Wikipedia, and generally preffered at e.g. FAR (where I am aiming for with this). --Errant ^(chat!) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "In preparation for the 1944 invasion of Normandy, the Allied nations conducted a complex series of deceptions under the codename Bodyguard. The overall aim of the plan was to confuse the enemy as to the exact location and timing of the invasion. Significant time was spent constructing a notional army, the First United States Army Group, to threaten Pas de Calais, as well as political and visual deceptions to communicate a fictional Allied battle plan. Copperhead was a small portion of the overall Bodyguard plan, conceived by Dudley Clarke. Clarke had previously pioneered strategic deception from his base in Cairo, and was not officially in charge of Bodyguard planning (a role that fell to the London Controlling Section)." Ref this paragraph please. Done References added. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	" pioneered strategic deception" I'm having a hard time believing this. Especially with no ref. Are you implying that prior to this no one had ever used "deception"? Done He pioneered strategic deception :) (see my featured article, Dudley Clarke, for background) I overlooked referencing that section, good catch. I've been writing so many of these articles that summarising the background is second nature :P working on the other referencing now. Rankin, however, supports this info. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pending
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending