Talk:Operation White

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / British / European / 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

The Skua

It says "blame was placed on the crew of the Skua", but it doesn't give any hint as to why the Skua should be at fault. They weren't the only ones who ran out of fuel and ditched; they didn't think up the mission or make the call to launch too far away. Is it because they decided to land on Sicily instead of crashing in the sea and dying? God forbid the Italians get ahold of one of those ultra-high tech Skuas! Anyway, it would be nice if it gave some indication of why the crew of one of the lost aircraft...one out of many...should be held accountable, but not any of the others. It leaves the reader guessing.

I also wanted to point out that it's interesting, how you get so jaded by the numbers, reading about all the dozens and hundreds and thousands of aircraft lost during the war, just how big an investment each represented. I guess it's reading stories of raids by hundreds of bombers; it makes it seem odd to worry much about a mere handful. But a mere handful represents quite a large chunk of combat potential; just because dozens were lost on a daily basis doesn't make them mere cannon fodder. Look what they accomplished at Taranto. A loss of a single aircraft was still a pretty stiff blow, you just don't realize it, since the regularity in which they were lost. AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refbegin

@Sturmvogel 66: Are you sure that one person agreeing with you amounts to consensus? Keith-264 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the accessibility guidelines, it works for me. I find it exceedingly difficult to justify to have different font sizes in articles when we have vision-impaired readers who might actually like to read the citations and bibliography just as easily as they can the article itself, without having to adjust their browser's magnification. We're not paper, so why should we follow the traditional smaller size of footnotes, etc., used in printed publications?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Further reading is intended to be read by the reader who finds the article interesting and the bibliography is part of the academic apparatus and to make it possible to check the text for OR etc, which is an internal Wiki matter. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]