Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Convoy PQ 17

Convoy PQ 17

I have made a major rewrite of this article, and I wanted some tips from the community as to how the overall quality and standard of the article can be improved.

Thanks for your help,

reuv ^T 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87

You know, a lot of the articles that come to PR are in quite a rough state, but this is really good. I can't see much that would stop it going to GA at the very least, maybe even ACR. From the top of my head come a few points:

The excerpts of messages from the Admiralty to the convoy are nice, but the box they're in is squashing up the text and makes it look odd; moving it to the bottom of the page might be better, as there's also a sentence sticking out kinda randomly.
Can you expand on the post-war criticism that came from American writers and the Soviet government? It would be interesting to hear what they were, if you know.
The 'Definite Axis Victory' sounds a bit odd, like you're defending the conclusion. Just 'Axis Victory' would be sufficient, I think.
Picture of the Wainright needs to be pulled up to the top of its section, as it's cutting into the next one.
Slight concern over the sources; quite a heavy reliance on Churchill in places, and he could be a tad biased and cut information down at times. Are there any more recent books on the convoy? Skinny87 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The message excerpts were edited. I removed the small-caps template to admiralty signal box; I guess that was really contributing to the squashiness. I also removed the 'Definite' from the battlebox result, as you rightly pointed out, there is no need to defend the result. I edited the criticism parts, changing it from Soviet government and American writers into 'Soviet and American sources'. I also added a number of sentences on this criticism. The image of the Wainright was moved to the top of section. As to the sources, I admit that I relied on Churchill - but only because he in turn had access to primary sources. For example, when adding the criticism parts I could have referenced them to the pages in Churchill's book that quoted the Soviet telegrams to him as Prime-Minister. With reference to your misgivings, I chose to quote three other books instead. I must really admit that I did rely on Churchill mostly for official quotes and Admiralty strategy - but only because primary sources on this subject are confused. E.g. Half of the books insist the convoy was directed to Murmansk, when Churchill states explicitly that Murmansk was completely bombed in that week. The same applies to the despicable effect of David Irving - his published research has literally polluted this topic with a flood of unverifiable statements. Thanks a lot for your help, I really appreciate it. reuv ^T 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks great now, except for one thing, sorry :) The criticism you've added doesn't really seem like criticism; the Soviet sentence just seems like a statement of fact, and not a criticism (maybe even tacit support, accepting that it wasn't the Allies fault it didn't turn up) and the American criticism seems like something that should be earlier in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment within the Peer-review was left here by User:Trekphiler at 23:31 & 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC). Thanks. reuv ^T 12:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

I agree with all of Skinny's comments, and particularly the opening comment that the article is in good shape. My suggestions for further improvements are:

The contents of the lead paras probably don't need to be cited
The word 'enemy' isn't suitable for Wikipedia articles as it isn't neutral
I'm not comfortable with the heavy use of Churchill's book - he isn't neutral and the book is now very old and dated, especially for the purposes of this article. I personally don't think that it even counts as a reliable source after reading David Reynolds' excellent and well regarded book In Command of History
Have you seen that the relevant volume of the British official history is now online? It would make a great source.
The article seems to be mainly written from the Allied point of view - more could be added on the German preparations for battle and experiences during the battle. Clay Blair's Hitler's U-Boat War may be useful for the undersea part of the battle.
The 'Convoy is to scatter' section is a bit short given that this was the critical moment of the entire battle. Did intelligence gained from decoding German signals play any role in this decision?
I'm surprised that there's no coverage of the Tirpitz group's return to port.
The debate over Allied actions in the battle (and particularly whether the order to scatter was justified) could be covered in more detail
The article's final sentence ("Some considered it the result of "the fact that in 1942, Anglo-american (ocean) communications were destroyed") seems an overstatement and it's unfortunate that the article ends on such a dubious point. Even if this was the view of Soviet historians, its not necessarily the view of western historians, and ignores the significant amounts of aid which reached the USSR via ports in Iran and Siberia. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose

I agree this article's in good shape prose/presentation-wise, while Skinny and Nick have raised useful points re. content/sourcing. Some other things:

To amplify Nick's comment re. the lead, there's no need to cite info there provided it's all cited in the main body of the article.
You can afford to increase the size of the images as appropriate to aid in comprehension, particularly the map; settling for the default thumb size is not required.
Re. Pound, one (general WWII) source I've seen suggests his decision-making may have been affected by the brain tumour he was suffering from, however I don't know if more specialised references count that as a factor - if so it could be mentioned.
Agree the last sentence sort of just hangs there. Another similar one for me is where King "hesitated to conduct further joint operations under British command". Anyone can hesitate, what actual effect did it have on joint operations?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]