Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/If Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it's my first strong MilHist GA and I'm hoping to take it to FAC in the future. The article discusses the Nazi invasion of Winnipeg, Canada, in 1942. It's got explosions and book-burnings and internments, and a liberal dose of painted sabre scars. All comments are welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsThis is a great article on an interesting topic, but I think that it needs a little more work to reach A class- "It was the largest military action in Winnipeg to that point." - have there been larger since? Calling this a 'military action' also seems inappropriate given that it was basically a propaganda exercise.
- Who were E. A. Pridham and D. S. McKay? (were they military officers, or local notables?)
- Is 'disc jockey' the correct term for radio announcers of this period?
- Selkirk, Manitoba is linked twice (it's location in relation to Winnipeg should also probably be noted for non-Canadians) Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for commenting! In order:
- Yes, at least two, depending on what you would consider a military action. I called this that because it involved large-scale organized troop movements and was considered by the army to be a training exercise. Is there a different term you think would work better?
- 'Military exercise' perhaps? A 'military action' is normally an operational deployment of some kind (eg, something where there's a good chance of shooting), when this was a propaganda exercise. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I think "exercise" is probably more appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended, thanks both. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I think "exercise" is probably more appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Military exercise' perhaps? A 'military action' is normally an operational deployment of some kind (eg, something where there's a good chance of shooting), when this was a propaganda exercise. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both colonels, clarified.
- Amended
- removed one, added location. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, at least two, depending on what you would consider a military action. I called this that because it involved large-scale organized troop movements and was considered by the army to be a training exercise. Is there a different term you think would work better?
- Support My comments are now addressed - great work. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- A fascinating story I'd never heard of, well told. Aside from a few minor things prose-wise, it all looked very good -- structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials. Nice job! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Features of If Day included a staged firefight ...": Anyone have a problem with "If Day included a staged firefight ..."? I don't see how that can be misinterpreted. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "$45 million ($620 million today)": FWIW, see User:Dank/MIL#inflation.
- "unawares": I'll look this up tomorrow, it might be a little informal. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed the last point. As to the second, I'm not using the template and I do have a source, so I think it's okay, but I'm willing to hear other opinions on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too; let's see what we get at WT:MIL#Inflation_again. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed the last point. As to the second, I'm not using the template and I do have a source, so I think it's okay, but I'm willing to hear other opinions on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Strictly on the inflation issue. I find comparative prices worthless. Wages, performance, durability, complexity, standards of living have all changed. A more revealling & valuable comparison, IMO, is one related to the Ford Model T: the time it would take for one of the workers making it to buy one. Or the price of comparable items contemporary with the one in question. Or even the annual wages of a typical worker. IMO, the inflation-adjusted dollar figure is next to meaningless without that context. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the figure in question is simply an amount of money (rather than, say, $45 million of rifles) using a straightforward inflation calculation is appropriate and the source which has been used to calculate it should be considered very reliable. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "today" is probably a problem per WP:DATED; I recommend "as of 20{{CURRENTYEARYY}}" if you use an inflation template that updates itself every year, or "as of 2011" in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the figure in question is simply an amount of money (rather than, say, $45 million of rifles) using a straightforward inflation calculation is appropriate and the source which has been used to calculate it should be considered very reliable. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.