Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Zeppelin (deception plan)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 12:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Operation Zeppelin (deception plan)

(

)

... that a Zeppelin helped the Allies during World War II?

Reviewed: Female Figure (Giambologna)
Comment: Expanded more than fivefold since Oct. 14th

5x expanded by ErrantX (talk). Self-nominated at 21:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC).

Article is expanded enough, is well cited throughout, and is written in a neutral way and free of copyvio. The problem is with the hook, I can't find a citation for it, and whether it's correct or not is really a matter of interpreting what's actually cited, which is that "it is likely that it bolstered the belief that...", "According to Jacob Field, the operation successfully detained twenty five divisions in defensive positions", and "whether directly related to Zeppelin or not...", &c. Could we please have a hook which is definitely supported by a reliable source? Moonraker (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Is this not sufficient: "the Allies considered it to have achieved the main objectives of tying down German forces in the region". The objective of Zeppelin was to do exactly that, tie up German forces in the area. Yes, there is no evidence that the German's really thought that an invasion would happen (note: if you dig into this topic everyone always couches analysis with caution because it was a confused time and the operations were complex) but they were cautious enough to do what the Allies wanted anyway. I always try to find interesting hooks that intrigue the reader; I could pull a dry fact from the article but that doesn't really excite me :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what I have done is re-worked the Impact section to make clear the point: Zeppelin was a success, with some details about why and how much following. Does that address concerns? If it also helps a direct quote from the source is: "Plan Zeppelin had in general achieved the required objects" --Errant ^(chat!) 21:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Errant, I do sympathize, a dry fact would have less impact, but a DYK hook has to be cited, a hook can't be an inference or one that might well be correct. If you were saying "...that a Zeppelin is believed to have tied down German forces in the Balkans", that would be fine, as you have a citation for it, but I couldn't find one to support "helped the Allies". Moonraker (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So your concern is with the word helped? If so, I've found a source that explicitly says this & rewritten part of the impact section to reflect the wording in the hook with inline sourcing :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, because the hook must be cited. Offline source accepted AGF. Ready to go. Moonraker (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)