Operation Deadstick

Almost all editors with an interest in WWII will have heard about Operation Deadstick, even if you don't recognise the name. It has just had a copy edit by the GOCE and could use a peer review for any suggestions for improvement. I have enjoyed writing the article and I hope you enjoy reading it. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Nick-D

This is a great article Jim, and my comments are really only about minor details:

• It seems a bit odd to directly link British Army during the Second World War in the first sentence - this sentence should place the operation in the context of the Normandy landings rather than the much broader topic of the British Army's experiances
• "that took place on 5 June 1944" - specify that it was during the night of 5/6 June, perhaps (and the infobox gives the date of the operation as 6 June)
• I'd suggest reorganising the 'background' section so that it starts with the 'British Forces' sub-section (as this explains the background to the operation), followed by the 'Bridges' and 'German forces' sub-sections
• "A further clearance of the trenches and bunkers captured a number of Germans" - 'a further clearance' is a bit awkward - could you use - 'another attack on' or similar?
• Should the names of the British platoons (eg 'one platoon') be capitalised? (eg, 'One Platoon').
• The Clearing the Channel Coast article doesn't seem relevant to what's covered in the 'Aftermath' section Nick-D ( talk) 10:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review I think 5 June was a typo and I have changed it to One Platoon etc all other suggestions incorporated. Thansk again Jim Sweeney ( talk) 13:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Fifelfoo

I mostly do footnotes:

• "ACTOR RETURNS TO SCENE OF D-DAY LANDINGS" has a date of publication
• Pegasus archive has an author (Editor? Archivist?). What makes this a reliable in transmitting intact "National Archives catalogue number WO 171/1239."? Also the war diary has an author, it has a document title, etc. etc.
• "Obituary, Colonel David Wood" has an author and a publication date
• ps pps n-dashes are good
• "The British Airborne Assault" incomplete bibliographic entry, it is an archive of a website at a certain point in time, originally published by MOD, part of a document series, part of a commemoration, with a last updated indicator
• "John Howard Is Dead at 86; British Hero of D-Day Invasion" has an author, publication date, etc.
• "Memorial Pegasus" has a publisher and corporate author "D-Day Commemoration Committee"

And bibliographies

• "London, England" Really? Last time I checked the recognised state was commonly known as the United Kingdom
• No journal articles? No monographs or chapters in edited collections solely on Deadstick?

And sourcing

• You seem overly reliant on Ambrose for the narrative, broadening sourcing in the ways suggested under "And bibliographies" may help improve the article Fifelfoo ( talk) 16:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the review changes incorporated Ambrose book has much more detail than the others but where possible I used other references. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 16:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Intothatdarkness

My comments are more general, although they are concerned with sourcing.

• Have you considered using Hans von Luck's memoirs for a German perspective? This seems somewhat lacking in the article as it stands now.

I was aware of the book but have been unable to locate a copy.

• I also have some concerns about over-reliance on Ambrose (especially given the plagiarism allegations that swirl around him), but I also understand that detailed sources might be lacking.

Ambrose is only used in 33 out of 97 references now

• In the 1st Commando Bde section, is it possible to identify by unit the attacking German forces? I know the units are mentioned earlier, but a refresher here might help (or not...it's something of a preference choice).  Done
• There are some typos scattered throughout the article (I noticed "Howard was not told the exact details of the opers(a)tion" and "told Howard that with a full load of men(,) ammunition, assault boats and engineers' stores" within a few lines of each other).  Done
• Other than those quibbles, it's a pretty good article. Intothatdarkness ( talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the review. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ranger Steve

Just a few general comments from me:

• I feel terrible asking this, but is there a reference for the operation name? I only ask because its so unknown, and I notice there's nothing in the text to confirm it. Reference added
• I can't recommend the Private Papers of John Howard enough and I really think this should be in the bibliography if the article goes to A class or above.
• Similarly there are some other books specifically on this operation other than those already in the bibliography. I haven't read it, but Barber's book springs to mind.

Hope it helps. Sorry if it dents the wallet though. Ranger Steve ^Talk 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks will try and obtain a copy of Howard's memoirs Jim Sweeney ( talk) 21:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Dank

I see this was closed a few days ago. I started working on it before and just had a chance to finish half of it, up to Operation Deadstick#Deadstick. I found little to fix, and fixed what I found, mostly commas where few people use them. If you're headed to FAC, change single quotes around a word or phrase to double quotes per WP:MOS#Quotation marks. Single quotes around a letter can stay. I don't know what "an 8 and 10 feet (2.4 and 3.0 m) wide narrow track" is; is it between 8 and 10 feet wide? Do you have any sources that support the spelling "Africa Korps"? Our article is Afrika Korps, and that's the spelling I've seen. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks the track is between 8 and 10 feet wide and spelling of Afrika Korps changed to match the article name. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC) reply