Talk:Operation Ironside

Operation Ironside is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 8, 2017.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 15, 2015	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
August 28, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
April 8, 2016	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 3, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Operation Ironside* was a Second World War military deception, targeting the Bay of Biscay, in support of the D-Day landings?*
Current status: Featured article

Military history: European / French / 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:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	World War II task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 08:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will aim to get to this later in the week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check -- no dab or EL issues.

Prose -- completed my usual copyedit, pls let me know if I've misinterpreted or broken anything.

Looks fine to me --Errant ^(chat!) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

Looks like a fair overview for GA-level; I'm assuming you weren't planning to take further than this.
- Maybe to A-Class, if I feel like it. But that' about it. There isn't much else to add except a bit of trivia. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmm, I tend to consider A-Class a deeper level of coverage (hopefully not trivia, I agree) and, as I say, it seems perfectly adequate for GA but perhaps a tad thin for A (or FA, which shouldn't be too far beyond A). I guess the Fredendall thing is an example the sort of additional detail I'd hope to find in A/FA. Of course if the material just isn't there, then it isn't. Anyway, doesn't affect us here...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks :) You've at least given me a starting point to flesh things out a bit. If I can then I'll probably give A-Class a shot - I do it more for the reviews than the badge (although obviously that is nice). GA gets someone to look over things, A-Class gets the nitpicks. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Idle query: anything on what the Germans thought of the suggestion that Fredendall would lead the "operation"? After Kasserine, I'd have thought that alone would make them think twice about Ironside's veracity... ;-)
- Interesting question. Nothing that popped out at me - I'll check the sources later see if I can find anything. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure / referencing / supporting materials -- seem to be in good order.

Summary -- nothing really holding this back, will just wait for your responses before closing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Errant ^(chat!) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob, passing as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Haversack Ruse to the See also section

Happy New Year, everybody! I have been accused of making an unconstructive edit for creating a See also section, specifically for the purpose of the addition of a link to Haversack Ruse which in my defense I did make sure didn't exist in the article beforehand. I oppose. While I will readily and wholly concur that any edit can be semantically construed as 'unconstructive,' I am wholly unable to come up with the reasons why this one should be so, although I could see how perhaps a little a drier humor in the edit summary would be preferred, perhaps something more along the lines of 'I should have needed a crook,' perhaps? My point is, I would like to seek input both on pointers on how best to achieve this as well as the aforementioned issue (ie how is that 'unconstructive' from anyone that should like to examine it. Admittedly Main Page Day was probably not the best time to make even a constructive edit. Thanks in advance. Oh and sorry if I hurt anybodys feelings. I honestly did not see that coming. Oh, and does anyone know if it is in fact "not allowed to apologize in France"? If it is impermissible for me to do so, I probably want to retract my apology.[?] Thanks. - 55378008a (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strongly object myself to the inclusion; though I question how "see also" it is, other than just being another ruse. Haversack Ruse is probably more relevant to Operation Mincemeat. I suspect what caught you out was the edit summary which didn't make clear why you thought it was a good see also (except that it was just-another-deception) compared to other deceptions you could link to. What makes it related or relevant in a way that would link from this article? I don't know why you were warned for it, probably you shouldn't have been, although I notice you've been adding a lot of See Also's that have caused a reaction so maybe it's because of that. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]