Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Paravane/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2017 [1].

Operation Paravane

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of the Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber units (including the famous "Dambusters" squadron) armed with huge Tallboy bombs and some ineffectual mines. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the Tallboy bomb was enough to damage Tirpitz beyond repair. In addition to covering the raid (which over very quickly), the article also describes the dramatic flights conducted by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents - with User:Manxruler providing very considerable input on this topic.

The article is a follow up to the three on Royal Navy air attacks on Tirpitz which I've developed to FA class over recent years (Operation Tungsten, Operation Mascot and Operation Goodwood) and I'm hopeful that it can also go the distance. It passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in early November, and has since been improved and copyedited. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is in fine shape. I made a few minor copy edit tweaks, but it reads really well, covers everything you would expect, is well footnoted and the references all appear reliable.

Support. Just a few queries but nothing major:

  • I know only the lead so you don't want to get bogged down in details but what does "no longer practical for the Germans to sail her to a major port" mean?
  • Is it worth mentioning that Norway was under Nazi occupation at the time, and wasn't harbouring the Tirpitz in its waters voluntarily?
  • Why was the Tirpitz in (more or less) one place for such a long time?
  • Which bases did the bombers leave from? For obvious reasons, there were a lot of RAF bases along the east coast of Britain during WWII. If there's a long list it's probably not worth including, I'm just curious.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I didn't get to review at MilHist ACR so have read top to bottom here, copyediting as I went; great work as always, Nick, specifics follow...

  • Fine with prose but pls check I haven't misinterpreted anything as I tweaked the wording.
  • Structure is straightforward and logical.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
  • Detailed, but not excessively so.
  • Source-wise, all look reliable and I only found one formatting error that I fixed. I guess my only query -- and it echoes what I said at another of these that was at A-Class -- is that while I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth with the non-English (i.e. Norwegian) sources, these do throw into sharp relief what appears to be a lack of German and, for that matter, Russian sources. This was a multi-national operation with at least some involvement from British, US, Australian, Norwegian, Soviet and, on the receiving end, German forces, but unless I missed something the last two are not represented in the sources, and this might be an opportunity to provide something from all perspectives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for those changes Ian. The sources which I used on the previous articles in this series had lots of details on German perspectives, but these are noticeably much scarcer for the final three heavy bomber raids which eventually destroyed the battleship - possibly (and horribly) because most of her crew was killed. I'll check some extra books which might provide further detail on Soviet perspectives, but am not sure if I'll turn up much - I've tried to include everything of significance on the Soviet experience of the operation which I've turned up, and I think that this provides useful coverage (on the high handed British treatment of the Soviet military, the hospitality shown to the air crews, the harsh conditions on their bases, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ian Rose: I checked all four books on UK-USSR relations and military cooperation at a major university library (as these seem to be the most likely sources of information on Soviet perspectives on this topic), but they had no information on it. Likewise, a detailed book on wartime intelligence sharing between the UK and USSR turned up blank, noting only that the operation had occurred and there'd been cooperation. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay tks for checking further, Nick -- I guess the preponderance of Norwegian accounts comes from it being a bigger event in Norway's war than in Russia's... Happy to offer full support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Ian. I'll keep my eye out for sources providing more detailed German and Soviet perspectives on this operation as well. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure. Don't get me wrong, I think you've covered all sides of the operation very well, I was just interested in whether there were unused, useful sources from all sides -- if not, well, we can only use what's there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Paravane/archive1&oldid=1075706272"