This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 360 days |
British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hi editors, I am concerned that this article might not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I have outlined some concerns below:
Is anyone interested in bringing this back to FA standards? Pinging Gaius Cornelius as they were the article's FAC nominator. Z1720 ( talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this article and ones that it links to, it is difficult to get a view of exactly where the major stop lines were. A map would improve that understanding, and given the deficiencies of articles like GHQ Line, this article would seem to be the best place to put such a map. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark83 ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Happy to review this. Comments to follow
Mark83 (
talk)
23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No idea what a large-scale division of military and civilian mobilisation means.
Kirke presented his plan on 15 November 1939, known as "Plan Julius Caesar" or "Plan J-C" because of the code word "Julius" which would be used for a likely invasion and "Caesar" for an imminent invasion. feels like some of this should be in a footnote - too confusing. With the Germans now on the coast of France, it became evident that an urgent reassessment needed to be given to the possibility of having to resist an attempted invasion of Britain by German forces - this feels a bit tortured. Suggest "With the Germans now occupying France, it became evident that an urgent reassessment of the need to resist a potential invasion of Britain by German forces was required." | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Does not comply with WP:LEAD - far too short. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All need to be reviewed. e.g. 27 page title incorrect. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Concerned about this one, see 2b section below.
Updated to fail on this criteria - Needs to be a focus for a new GAN. Mark83 ( talk) 01:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | with ports and airfields given priority. -- priority in what way? | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No concerns. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Only starting this review and already concerned about how far this article is away from promotion. Inviting @
MasterMatt12: to add his thoughts here. It's not a bad article at all, but the GA nomination feels rushed as there is a lot of work to do. I suggest I fail this current nomination, and user(s) undertake a thorough review of the
good article criteria ahead of a renomination.
Mark83 (
talk)
00:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, on further review I am increasingly of the opinion that there is too much to do to make promotion possible in the usual timescale, even with the issues I have identified in the earlier parts of the article (more would follow). See my comments so far as examples of what needs to be improved. With all due respect, it doesn't feel like this article was interrogated against the GA criteria prior to nomination. But to be constructive - that's the way forward. Mark83 ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
Some large bodies of text with just one reference. Are these adequately covered by that one reference? e.g.:
Also, there are "unreliable source?" tags - these should have been dealt with before a GAN. Mark83 ( talk) 00:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
References concerns:
In lead - "...transferred much of the United Kingdom" - sorry to be pedantic but large swathes of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will have been untouched. And even in England the majority of land will not have been impacted. Therefore "much" is incorrect. Similiarly "little remains" and "can still be commonly found" is contradictory.
"The evacuation of British and French forces (Operation Dynamo) began on 26 May with air cover provided by the Royal Air Force at heavy cost." - What constitutes a heavy cost. Mark83 ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 360 days |
British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hi editors, I am concerned that this article might not meet the featured article criteria anymore. I have outlined some concerns below:
Is anyone interested in bringing this back to FA standards? Pinging Gaius Cornelius as they were the article's FAC nominator. Z1720 ( talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this article and ones that it links to, it is difficult to get a view of exactly where the major stop lines were. A map would improve that understanding, and given the deficiencies of articles like GHQ Line, this article would seem to be the best place to put such a map. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mark83 ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Happy to review this. Comments to follow
Mark83 (
talk)
23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | No idea what a large-scale division of military and civilian mobilisation means.
Kirke presented his plan on 15 November 1939, known as "Plan Julius Caesar" or "Plan J-C" because of the code word "Julius" which would be used for a likely invasion and "Caesar" for an imminent invasion. feels like some of this should be in a footnote - too confusing. With the Germans now on the coast of France, it became evident that an urgent reassessment needed to be given to the possibility of having to resist an attempted invasion of Britain by German forces - this feels a bit tortured. Suggest "With the Germans now occupying France, it became evident that an urgent reassessment of the need to resist a potential invasion of Britain by German forces was required." | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Does not comply with WP:LEAD - far too short. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All need to be reviewed. e.g. 27 page title incorrect. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Concerned about this one, see 2b section below.
Updated to fail on this criteria - Needs to be a focus for a new GAN. Mark83 ( talk) 01:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | with ports and airfields given priority. -- priority in what way? | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No concerns. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Criteria not reviewed in detail - too much work to do on other criteria, hence the fail at this stage. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Only starting this review and already concerned about how far this article is away from promotion. Inviting @
MasterMatt12: to add his thoughts here. It's not a bad article at all, but the GA nomination feels rushed as there is a lot of work to do. I suggest I fail this current nomination, and user(s) undertake a thorough review of the
good article criteria ahead of a renomination.
Mark83 (
talk)
00:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, on further review I am increasingly of the opinion that there is too much to do to make promotion possible in the usual timescale, even with the issues I have identified in the earlier parts of the article (more would follow). See my comments so far as examples of what needs to be improved. With all due respect, it doesn't feel like this article was interrogated against the GA criteria prior to nomination. But to be constructive - that's the way forward. Mark83 ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
Some large bodies of text with just one reference. Are these adequately covered by that one reference? e.g.:
Also, there are "unreliable source?" tags - these should have been dealt with before a GAN. Mark83 ( talk) 00:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
References concerns:
In lead - "...transferred much of the United Kingdom" - sorry to be pedantic but large swathes of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales will have been untouched. And even in England the majority of land will not have been impacted. Therefore "much" is incorrect. Similiarly "little remains" and "can still be commonly found" is contradictory.
"The evacuation of British and French forces (Operation Dynamo) began on 26 May with air cover provided by the Royal Air Force at heavy cost." - What constitutes a heavy cost. Mark83 ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)