This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Steinbock 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | Military history: Aviation / British / European / German / World War II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Even though it exceeds Wikipedia standards, could someone who understands the English language please rewrite this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.14.6.135 ( talk) 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
These had nothing to with Steinbock. The German intruder operations were defending German air space by offensively attackng Allied bombers over Britain. This was a defensive operation and had nothing to do with Steinbock. Dapi89 ( talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous references to 'Beale 2005' and a page number without the actual book referenced being named. Which book is it?-- Paulthorgan ( talk) 10:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous references to 'Beale 2005' and a page number without the actual book referenced being named. Which book is it?-- Paulthorgan ( talk) 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't say that I've ever seen this, or any other German operation, refereed to as an 'Unternehmen' (which I assume is the German word for 'operation'). As this is the English-language Wikipedia we need to use the common English language name for things. Nick-D ( talk) 23:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
In the aftermath section it says "...the Nazi leadership, still bent on revenge...". The phrase "bent on revenge" feels much too emotive and is simply unnecessary. I've removed it and just opened this to explain.
In the aftermath section it says "...the Nazi leadership, still bent on revenge...". The phrase "bent on revenge" feels much too emotive and is simply unnecessary. I've removed it and just opened this to explain. Rottint ( talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Noticed User:Irondome thinks that the statement in the lead that the Germans did not prepare for air defence in any appreciable degree is "bollocks". It is a fact, easily verified. I will add sources but it concerning there seems to be a total misunderstanding of German doctrine and level of preparedness in that edit summary. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
"Wragg 2007" is mentioned in the notes but not in the sources. What work is this supposed to reference? 104.254.11.181 ( talk) 20:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
talk page or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this
talk page
has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{
in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was
last edited by
Cewbot (
talk |
contribs) 4 months ago. (
Update timer) |
Regards Shire Lord ( talk) 15:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
With seven paras, the lead is too long. Generally, four paragraphs are preferable. Feedback? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
No doubt Big Week happened simultaneously with Steinbock, but the latter started before Big Week and it was not the cause of the German offensive. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Dapi89: I did some copy editing to check if all the sources are correctly aligned. I had trouble finding references for the following citations.
If you see this, please check and add the references. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
" Peilgerät (PeilG) 6 (codenamed "Alex Sniatkowski" " can anybody have a look and confirm that codename? It seems an odd choice for a codename and I cannot find mention of it googling peilgerat 6. 46.15.141.74 ( talk) 19:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I deleted this list in the "Aftermath"-section
German losses:
270
Junkers Ju 88s
[1]
121
Dornier Do 217s
[1]
35
Junkers Ju 188s
[1]
46
Heinkel He 177As
[1]
27
Messerschmitt Me 410s
[1]
25
Focke-Wulf Fw 190s
[1]
These are not the German losses, these are the German aircraft used: 524. The losses amounted to 329 aircraft. For sources, just check the very same article 91.49.25.91 ( talk) 08:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Steinbock 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 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | Military history: Aviation / British / European / German / World War II | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Even though it exceeds Wikipedia standards, could someone who understands the English language please rewrite this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.14.6.135 ( talk) 18:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
These had nothing to with Steinbock. The German intruder operations were defending German air space by offensively attackng Allied bombers over Britain. This was a defensive operation and had nothing to do with Steinbock. Dapi89 ( talk) 22:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous references to 'Beale 2005' and a page number without the actual book referenced being named. Which book is it?-- Paulthorgan ( talk) 10:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous references to 'Beale 2005' and a page number without the actual book referenced being named. Which book is it?-- Paulthorgan ( talk) 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't say that I've ever seen this, or any other German operation, refereed to as an 'Unternehmen' (which I assume is the German word for 'operation'). As this is the English-language Wikipedia we need to use the common English language name for things. Nick-D ( talk) 23:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
In the aftermath section it says "...the Nazi leadership, still bent on revenge...". The phrase "bent on revenge" feels much too emotive and is simply unnecessary. I've removed it and just opened this to explain.
In the aftermath section it says "...the Nazi leadership, still bent on revenge...". The phrase "bent on revenge" feels much too emotive and is simply unnecessary. I've removed it and just opened this to explain. Rottint ( talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Noticed User:Irondome thinks that the statement in the lead that the Germans did not prepare for air defence in any appreciable degree is "bollocks". It is a fact, easily verified. I will add sources but it concerning there seems to be a total misunderstanding of German doctrine and level of preparedness in that edit summary. Dapi89 ( talk) 10:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
"Wragg 2007" is mentioned in the notes but not in the sources. What work is this supposed to reference? 104.254.11.181 ( talk) 20:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
talk page or section is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this
talk page
has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{
in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This article was
last edited by
Cewbot (
talk |
contribs) 4 months ago. (
Update timer) |
Regards Shire Lord ( talk) 15:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
With seven paras, the lead is too long. Generally, four paragraphs are preferable. Feedback? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
No doubt Big Week happened simultaneously with Steinbock, but the latter started before Big Week and it was not the cause of the German offensive. Dapi89 ( talk) 11:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Dapi89: I did some copy editing to check if all the sources are correctly aligned. I had trouble finding references for the following citations.
If you see this, please check and add the references. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 09:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
" Peilgerät (PeilG) 6 (codenamed "Alex Sniatkowski" " can anybody have a look and confirm that codename? It seems an odd choice for a codename and I cannot find mention of it googling peilgerat 6. 46.15.141.74 ( talk) 19:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I deleted this list in the "Aftermath"-section
German losses:
270
Junkers Ju 88s
[1]
121
Dornier Do 217s
[1]
35
Junkers Ju 188s
[1]
46
Heinkel He 177As
[1]
27
Messerschmitt Me 410s
[1]
25
Focke-Wulf Fw 190s
[1]
These are not the German losses, these are the German aircraft used: 524. The losses amounted to 329 aircraft. For sources, just check the very same article 91.49.25.91 ( talk) 08:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)