The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Operation Graffham was a Second World War political
deception intended to convince the Swedish government that the Allied nations were about to invade Norway?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Reviewing this thoroughly interesting article, I have only noted a few things, most of which should be straightforward to address. I made a few minor ce tweaks as I went through as well. Otherwise this is looking to be in great shape.
Zawed (
talk)
22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
1) This sentence of the lead doesn't flow well: "Specifically Graffham provided political support to the visual and wireless deception of Operation Fortitude North; together creating a fictional threat to Norway during the summer of 1944." Suggest revising to: "Graffham specifically provided political support to the visual and wireless deception of Operation Fortitude North. These operations together created a fictional threat to Norway during the summer of 1944." 2) The infobox: should the slash in the "Planned" field be a dash like the date field? 3) Another sentence that doesn't flow well: "The Allies were already putting political pressure on Sweden to end their neutral stance, for example in requests for the country to stop exports of ball bearings (an important component in military hardware) to Germany." I think my hangup is the portion around the "...,for example"
1) "Permission for Colonel H. V. Thornton to meet Swedish officials" - if the sources allow, you may want to insert a bracketed comment about who Thornton was. 2) Any info on the value of securities purchased? 3) There is no discussion of the 7th request (false wireless traffic); presumably things did not escalate this far?
I think I've addressed all the points. There is no detail about the securities other than they were bought... and Barbier mentions the wireless traffic once, and never again... I don't think I can add anything more to those items (at least for the moment, I'm waiting for some primary source documents to clarify a few things ready for ACR). I rephrased some of the sticky sections you pointed out, I didn't get rid of the "for example" - but that portion is otherwise entirely refactored so see what you think :) Thanks for a detailed review. --Errant(
chat!)23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Operation Graffham was a Second World War political
deception intended to convince the Swedish government that the Allied nations were about to invade Norway?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Reviewing this thoroughly interesting article, I have only noted a few things, most of which should be straightforward to address. I made a few minor ce tweaks as I went through as well. Otherwise this is looking to be in great shape.
Zawed (
talk)
22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply
1) This sentence of the lead doesn't flow well: "Specifically Graffham provided political support to the visual and wireless deception of Operation Fortitude North; together creating a fictional threat to Norway during the summer of 1944." Suggest revising to: "Graffham specifically provided political support to the visual and wireless deception of Operation Fortitude North. These operations together created a fictional threat to Norway during the summer of 1944." 2) The infobox: should the slash in the "Planned" field be a dash like the date field? 3) Another sentence that doesn't flow well: "The Allies were already putting political pressure on Sweden to end their neutral stance, for example in requests for the country to stop exports of ball bearings (an important component in military hardware) to Germany." I think my hangup is the portion around the "...,for example"
1) "Permission for Colonel H. V. Thornton to meet Swedish officials" - if the sources allow, you may want to insert a bracketed comment about who Thornton was. 2) Any info on the value of securities purchased? 3) There is no discussion of the 7th request (false wireless traffic); presumably things did not escalate this far?
I think I've addressed all the points. There is no detail about the securities other than they were bought... and Barbier mentions the wireless traffic once, and never again... I don't think I can add anything more to those items (at least for the moment, I'm waiting for some primary source documents to clarify a few things ready for ACR). I rephrased some of the sticky sections you pointed out, I didn't get rid of the "for example" - but that portion is otherwise entirely refactored so see what you think :) Thanks for a detailed review. --Errant(
chat!)23:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)reply