Talk:Operation Ferdinand

Operation Ferdinand has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 14, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Operation Ferdinand appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 February 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Ferdinand's threat to Genoa during World War II allowed a Dragoon to achieve tactical surprise?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Ferdinand.

Wikipedia

Military history: Intelligence / Technology / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	World War II task force

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Ferdinand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Comments to follow over the next couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is looking to be in great shape, I have only noted a few things, most of which should be straightforward to address. I made a few minor ce tweaks as I went through as well. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
1) Infobox: the objective field is blank?

2) Dupe link: Seventh Army

3) Operation Royal Flush is linked on the second usage, not the first.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
1) Holt and Lloyd are missing publisher's location.

2) Latimer has a double colon in the publisher's location.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
1) "originally threatened by Vendetta" - no context for Vendetta? Presumably another deception plan?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Thanks! I'll get onto this later! --Errant ^(chat!) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC) @Zawed: I think I've addressed these issues. Vendetta was a sub-plan of Zeppelin so I called it out when introducting that plan. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks good so passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]