Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Pluto

Add links
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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Pluto

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Pluto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review despite the fact that it took six months to get my last article through. I originally intended to fix it up a bit, but it required more than a little bit of fixing and a complete rewrite was required. Most of the original article is now the lead; I always try to retain as much as possible of the work of others even in a rewrite. The subject of this article is fairly well known, but many readers will be surprised by what it says. Recently passed GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Mostly OK. Some of the UK photographs which the website says were taken in 1944 or 1945 are dated on Commons as 2012, ideally that would be fixed but it's not strictly required. The only issue is the last image, which appears to contravene WP:NFCC, but I asked the uploader and hopefully it can be sorted out. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Looks interesting, will take a look at over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " In the event, the port of Cherbourg was not captured until 27 June,[37]" - Might be worth stating this date in D+ or in days behind schedule, as well, for an easier comparison to the planned dates
    It was captured on D+21, and was opened on D+49. I'm forced to adopt the planning stage notation because D-Day was postponed from 5 to 6 June. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Hamel when it encountered a sharp edge" - Sharp edge through a pipe construction flaw, something on the bottom of the ocean, or an anchor snag or something? I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what this is saying
    Added on the ocean floor. Probably a rock outcropping, but there's so much debris at the bottom of the English channel, one can't be certain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting, I could hardly find anything to comment on. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I was quite interested to see a small chunk of a Pluto pipe at the Docklands branch of the Museum of London a few years ago, but yet don't know much about this project aside from a vague awareness that its results have long been over-hyped. The article is very interesting and informative, and I'm pleased to support this nomination with a couple of minor comments:

  • "Pipelines would reduce the reliance on coastal tankers ... and required vulnerable storage tanks ashore" - this is a bit confusing: perhaps something like "and needed to be offloaded into vulnerable storage tanks ashore"?
    checkY Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heavily mined" - link 'mined' here.
    checkY Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is headed to a FAC, I'd suggest looking to add a section on the historiography on this topic: it has a reputation for being one of the cunning British weapons which won the war (as opposed to the 21st Army Group and 2TAF slugging it out with the Germans...), but the reality is less impressive. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's something very British about the whole thing. Less enthusiastic about FAC than I was yesterday, but I'll give it a go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reckon this has legs for a FA, and is a topic which is of perennial interest - the current average of 143 page views a day is pretty high for this kind of topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed - Support

[edit]

This is in good shape. Just a few comments:

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got concerns about the reliability of two of the web sources. It's unclear how reliable Kent Past is, and CombinedOps appears to be self-published by one Geoff Slee. Is there anything that makes these two sources particularly reliable?
    • Kent Past is a magazine put out by the Kent City Council. It's in the article for the mention of the Corby Steelworks, which another editor thought important, but everything else it says checks out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CombinedOps is a veterans' site, funded by subscriptions for a memorial. It is a virtual memorial, something that was common in the early 2000s (the subscriptions funded a conventional monument as well). Geoff Slee currently maintains the site. The page in question publishes the personal reminiscences of Captain Frederick Arthur Roughton (1913-2013), who was involved in the laying of the pipeline (for which he was mentioned in despatches in 1945 [1]) and its salvage (for which he was awarded the MBE in 1950 [2]). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Pluto&oldid=1026973300"