The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Operation Obviate
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Operation Obviate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
This is a return after a two year hiatus to my series on Allied air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. It covers an attack on the warship by the Royal Air Force's two elite heavy bomber squadrons which failed at the last minute due to clouds suddenly covering the battleship. This bad luck led to many of the bombers making multiple passes over the target area before dropping their scarce and expensive Tallboy bombs on where they thought Tirpitz probably was. Not surprisingly, none of the bombs struck their target, but the aircrews' success in scoring several near misses demonstrated the skills which sent Tirpitz to her end in an almost identical attack a few weeks later.
This article passed a GA nomination in December 2018, and has been further improved. I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now also met. Once it passes A-class, I intended to further develop it for a FAC, and so would appreciate any comments other editors may have on its readiness for this as well. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Image review - images are correctly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Support Comments: G'day, Nick, fascinating topic. I grew up reading Frederick E. Smith's 633 Squadron books, so I found this quite interesting. I have a few minor comments/queries: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- no duplicate links; no dabs; no issues with external links (no action required)
- referencing looks sufficient to me (no action required)
- Weather conditions were favourable --> "Weather conditions were favourable for the attackers"?
- Junge only appears to be mentioned in the infobox. What was his role? Perhaps this should be mentioned in the body of the article?
- specified that the battleship was to be attacked by 36 Lancasters: is this inconsistent with the lead 38 British bombers?
- No sources explain why more than the specified number of Lancasters were dispatched. I suspect that the flyable reserve aircraft which were sent to Scotland were used in the mission to augment the chances of success (especially as they had been modified for the mission, bombed up and their crews briefed). Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- was directed position Tirpitz at a location...: typo?
- surrounded by torpedo nets.[28][29][17]: suggest placing the refs in numerical order
- in the Works consulted section, the hyphenation of the isbns is slightly inconsistent
- link Barracuda dive bombers?
- inconsistent spelling, compare "Johnnie Walker" with "Jonnie Walker"
- would control their units during the operation --> "would control their units in the air during the operation"?
- this involved violating Sweden's neutrality: were there any consequences for this?
- The sources don't mention any, and the fact that the aircrew were repatriated without any problems being noted anywhere suggest not. By this stage of the war Sweden was openly favouring the Allies. Thanks a lot for these comments, and sorry for the slow response. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, looks good. Thanks for working on this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- The sources don't mention any, and the fact that the aircrew were repatriated without any problems being noted anywhere suggest not. By this stage of the war Sweden was openly favouring the Allies. Thanks a lot for these comments, and sorry for the slow response. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Support: Wonderful read. I made a few minor WS and GR touchups. Good to go on prose. Ping me when it's time to do Catechism. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Source review by Factotem
Everything checks out OK. Just a few comments below. Given the pedigree of the nom I haven't done any spotchecks.
Technical checks (ref formatting etc) all good.
Bibliography
- Why does the Bennett publication include chapter and page references when Bennett is the author. Presumably it's a collection with contributions from different authors and edited by Bennett? Not an issue, just curious;
- According to its Worldcat entry, Sink the Tirpitz 1942-44 : the RAF and Fleet Air Arm duel with Germany's mighty battleship was co-authored by Angus Konstam and Jim Laurier.
Comprehensiveness
- Not sure if Sinking the Beast: The RAF 1944 Lancaster Raids Against Tirpitz can add anything. It has a chapter on Operation Obviate which can be partially previewed on GBooks (though without page numbers), which mentions Junge a few times and that Swedish flak opened fire on the bombers (both mentioned elsewhere in this review).
That's all. Factotem (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Support by PM
I went through the article with a fine tooth comb and made a few minor c/e tweaks. Found nothing that would be an obstacle to my support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Pendright
An interesting story, well told. Hopefully, the comments that follow will help make a good article better. Pendright (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Lead:
- After a period of planning and preparations, 38 British bombers and a film aircraft departed bases in northern Scotland during the early hours of 29 October.
- Due to the presence of clouds over Tromsø, Tirpitz survived the raid with only light damage.
- The battleship was not directly hit, but suffered light damage from a bomb which exploded in the water.
Backgroud:
- From March 1943 Tirptiz was based at Kaafjord in the far north of Norway.
- On 3 April 1944 aircraft flying from Royal Navy aircraft carriers attacked Tirpitz during Operation Tungsten and inflicted further damage.
- ... "Johnnie Walker" mines, and was mounted from Yagodnik in the Soviet Union.
Prelude:
- A meeting involving Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, the commander of the German Navy, was held in Berlin on 23 September to discuss ...
- Intelligence gained by photo reconnaissance, signals intelligence and Norwegian agents confirmed to the Allies that Tirpitz had been badly damaged during Operation Paravane.
- Soon after reaching Håkøya 600 sailors, mostly members of her engine room crew, were removed from the ship.
- In response to these reports, the British aircraft carrier HMS Implacable was sortied from the ...
- The battleship departed Kaafjord at 12 pm local time on 15 October under the escort of a large number of warships.
- ... and returned to base despite being damaged by anti-aircraft guns. Shortly afterwards Implacable's Fairey Firefly aircraft ... reconnoitred
- Shortly afterwards Implacable's Fairey Firefly aircraft reconnoitred the Tromsø area,
In progress - Pendright (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
German:
- None of the large number of smoke generators and anti-aircraft guns which had protected the battleship against air attack at Kaafjord were initially available, as they had not yet been shipped south.
- Consider this: None of the large number of smoke generators and anti-aircraft guns, which had protected the battleship against air attack at Kaafjord, were initially available because they had not yet been shipped south.
Departure:
- On 26 October Bomber Command advised the Admiralty that Operation Obviate would commence as soon as weather conditions permitted after the night of 27 October.
- In the evening of 27 October the aircrew selected for Operation Obviate were briefed on the plan, and told they would proceed to the forward airfields the next morning.
Over Tromsø:
- Once this was complete, they proceeded to Tromsø, with the Lancasters climbing further to their bombing heights of between 13,000 feet (4,000 m) and 16,000 feet (4,900 m).
Done - Pendright (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for these comments. I think that I've now addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Picky driveby comment: I asked GOCE about the use of a comma after an introductory statement that fixes the time ("On <date>..."). It appears to be optional, with the main concern being the pacing of the prose in the sentence (OK with long sentences, not necessary for short sentences). I also researched the issue off-wiki, and found that it appears to be a national variety thing; the comma seems to be expected in AmEng, but whilst it is not wrong in BrEng, it's less accepted. More problematic is the incorrect use of "with" as a conjunction in the last comment ("... they proceeded to Tromsø, with the Lancasters climbing further...); I've seen that picked up on at FAC. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good catch - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Introductory phrase: I’ve checked out four of the several articles currently under AC review, all of which were written by users of British English. The introductory phrase was used in each of the four articles, sometime for only two words, including dates. So by custom or otherwise, the introductory phrase is alive and well in British English. The nominator of the subject article was asked to "consider" using the introductory phrase in a few instances, and chose to do so. Pendright (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Picky driveby comment: I asked GOCE about the use of a comma after an introductory statement that fixes the time ("On <date>..."). It appears to be optional, with the main concern being the pacing of the prose in the sentence (OK with long sentences, not necessary for short sentences). I also researched the issue off-wiki, and found that it appears to be a national variety thing; the comma seems to be expected in AmEng, but whilst it is not wrong in BrEng, it's less accepted. More problematic is the incorrect use of "with" as a conjunction in the last comment ("... they proceeded to Tromsø, with the Lancasters climbing further...); I've seen that picked up on at FAC. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)