- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
D-Day naval deceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My third featured article candidate on the topic of military deception. This time a little piece about three closely related deceptions conducted in the early hours of D-Day, 1942. These three naval deceptions were intended to create confusion for the German defenders, whether they had the desired effect or not... who knows! Enjoy :) Errant (chat!) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "For example, radar jamming using wireless sets and chaff (known by the codename Window).": Sentence fragment.
- A kindly copyeditor fixed this :)
- "If successful in drawing German forces toward the coast, RAF bombing raids would target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy.": Did the raids target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy?
- I've reworded this sentence, see what you thing
- "precise accurate": precise
- "tell tale": tell-tale
- "at shortly after": shortly after
- "however was not supported ... Instead Task Force C consisted": but was not supported ... Task Force C consisted
- "However, as the Germans failed to respond the ships": As the Germans failed to respond, the ships
- "forces in poor conditions. Poor weather conditions meant that": forces. Launched in poor weather conditions,
- "All of these factors contributed to making the operations less effective than the planners might have envisioned.": Delete.
- I addressed this per recommendations from Steve below. See what you think.
- "not because bad weather": Is there an "of" in the quote? - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Comments
A nice little article. I've got just a few comments:
- I agree with all of Dank's recommended corrections above, except his second to last. If Barbier specifically says that the planners were less than satisfied with the result, I'd keep the sentence in, but reword it a little, perhaps to "The planners felt that the operations had been less effective than had originally been envisioned." or something like that.
- The opening sentence is a little long and includes five operation names. Just to reduce the number of subjects, I'd be inclined to delete Operation Neptune and wikilink "the Allied landings in Normandy" instead. However, that would mean the name Operation Neptune doesn't appear in the lede, so I appreciate you might not want to do that.
- "The naval operations took the form of small boats and aircraft from RAF Bomber Command simulating invasion fleets". Were the small boats from RAF Bomber Command? I presume not, but this sentence makes it appear that they were. I'd put a few words in about where the boats came from (which flotilla or something like that).
- I've reworded this, see what you think
- WRT where they came from.. no mention in the sources of where they came from. Could be one of several ML Flotilla's at the time (e.g. 151st) but, nothing specific in the sources. I'll keep hunting.
- "The London Controlling Section (LCS) had spent some time convincing Germans that the First United States Army Group (FUSAG) represented the bulk of the Allied invasion force." Perhaps specify which Germans; at the moment it rather implies that any old German was the target of the deception, when I imagine it was probably High Command or OB West.
"The Allied story for FUSAG was that the army group," What army group? Not previously mentioned so best to specify a name or just say "an army group"
- "Attached to "U" convoy" Do you mean Force U? I've only ever heard the beach task forces referred to as Force J, Force S etc...
Otherwise, I think it reads well. Good job. Ranger Steve Talk 09:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Have you had an image review?
- No. The three body images I believe are OK (one own work of the Lancaster, one Crown Copyright from the IWM and one a derivative work by myself based on File:BlankEurope.png). The lead image I am less confident about now I check.... but looking for a source.
- Agree about images. Perhaps ask at MCQ whether a heir would be copyright holder? This is of such high resolution that I doubt it is anything but a scan of a photograph (i.e. not a random image from the web, though who owns the copyright I have no idea). I have not found any images of HDMLs on .mil or .gov sites. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree. 1301 is owned by this guy, but that pic is not on his site. I will try to make contact and see if he has any knowledge of this image. As you say; given the resolution and the uploader's name I'm very inclined to AGF on the upload. Will check on the copyright issue. --Errant (chat!) 09:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- built up by the Operation Bodyguard plan over preceding months, - Perhaps "promulgated/promoted by the Allied forces"
- Rephrased/tightened, see what you think
- Your sentences tend to be quite long. Any way you can trim a couple?
- I've gone through and had a go at this. Are there any that continue to leap out at you?
- It was also decided - Passive voice. Who decided?
- Rephrased, see what ya think
- If successful in drawing German forces toward the coast, RAF bombing raids would target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy. - Perhaps "If [these measures were] successful in drawing German forces toward the coast, RAF bombing raids would target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy.", as otherwise your subject may be read as "RAF bombing raids"
- I've rephrased this sentence, see what you think
- Wing Commander is a dab link
- I understand that part of this is going to be classified, but is there any more information available? Do any German books on the war discuss these deceptions? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, there is only limited information - these were quite last minute operations and most of the sources only touch on them. I've not found any reference in German books, but I don't read German so my ability to find that material is limited. --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and images (see image review above). Looks like a solid, if brief, look at a footnote on a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to everyone for the delay in working on your review points! I've been camping in a field for a week :) so will try and get through everything this week. --Errant (chat!) 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Quadell[edit]
Playing around on Google Books, I found some potential sources. I have not analyzed them for their reliability, and I'm not sure if they present a non-negligible amount of new info not already in the article or not... but with that caveat, here are some sources for your perusal, Errant:
Are any of these useful, reliable sources for additional material, to expand the content in this article? – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for listing these! I have most of these books and they only really mention this operation in passing. They don't add anything to the current sources. However, I'd have no objection to listing some or all of them as further reading! What do you think? --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if any of them would be useful in a "further reading" section or not; I'll leave that up to you. I just wanted to make sure there weren't any obvious other sources that could help flesh out the article. Unless someone provides a new source with more information, I'm willing to agree that there are no actionable "completeness" issue with this article. – Quadell (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose: The prose is lively and clear, but the article overuses commas in a few places. Commas are not needed in the first sentence (except after "Taxable"). Commas aren't needed around "and aircraft from RAF Bomber Command". I believe the comma is spurious in the "Dam Busters" caption after "Squadron", unless I don't understand the grammar of plane nomenclature. No comma is needed after "the size and disposition of an invasion force". There may be other instances of overcommaing (What a terrible attempt at a word!), so check carefully for it.
- I've gone through the article with this in mind, see what you think - but the "and aircraft from" commas were inserted to correct a problem where it appeared the boats were from bomber command also. I believe this is a correct usage :)
- Context: I think FAs need to provide as much context as is practical so that someone with very little knowledge of the background will be able to understand how the topic of the article fits into the wider context. This article does not explicitly mention World War II, or link "German" to any context as to what German force we're talking about. I know it may sound pedantic and even absurd to imagine a reader would not know we're talking about WWII, but I still think it's good practice. (And it's not as if the article is too long...)
- Images: The images are all legitimately free and used appropriately. (I cleaned up the sourcing on one.) But in the captions, complete sentences need periods.
- Captions done
- Well, that introduced new errors. "Map of Europe with the subordinate plans of Operation Bodyguard labelled", "Grainy Second World War photograph of chaff being dropped from an aircraft", and "Colour photograph of a Lancaster Bomber in flight" are not complete sentences, and should not have periods. (Then again, they are alt text, not captions.) "A Harbour Defence Motor Launch, similar to those used during the operations" is a caption, but is not a complete sentence, and should not have a period. Other captions which are complete sentences (e.g. "The D-Day naval deceptions made up one part of Operation Bodyguard") are complete sentences and do need periods. – Quadell (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Too sleepy today. I think I've got it now.
- Clarity: Was chaff known as "Window"? Or were all the deception techniques together known as "Window"? Also, did you mean "radios and balloons" rather than "radios and balloon"?
- Reworked these portions to hopefully clarify these things!
- Style: It seems to me that the "Impact" section would work better if the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were reversed. What do you think?
- Sourcing: Does Barbier (pp.110-111) support the claim that "The extent to which Taxable and Glimmer were successful has been debated"? If so, then great! But if not, that will need more support.
- I can't directly support this, so removed
- References: I'm used to "page" being abbreviated "p." and "pages" as "pp." Is your abbreviation of "pg." an acceptable standard I'm not aware of? Other than that, the references are excellent.
- No, good catch. I will figure out a source for this tonight.
- Done! :)
- Categories: Why is this article in Category:Operation Neptune? It isn't mentioned in the article. And why Category:Operation Fortitude, which the "background section" indicates is merely a related operation? And for that matter, should there be a Category:Operation Bodyguard?
- Good spot, and you are right. Done
I'm happy with all other aspects of the article. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, I've started work on these points and hopefully will have them worked through by the weekend. --Errant (chat!) 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All issues have been resolved, and I believe this fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1b,c;2a
- The operational plan is an old template, switch to an infobox.
- Seems entirely semantic seeing as one is a redirect to the other :) but done.
- The lead is too short.
- How long would you expect it to be, just as guidance. I usually follow the guidance at WP:LEAD, which recommends approx. 1-2 paragraphs for an article of this sort.
- A one paragraph section shouldn't be a section.
- It should be obvious why it is a section :) Do you have an alternative suggestion for delineating the seperate operation? I'm note sure there is a guideline preventing that sort of layout. Can you convince me of why it shouldn't be like that?
- Not sure I understand the further reading section - why not cite it?
- I guess it doesn't add much I can't cite elsewhere; it was in the article when I started it and I don't like removing other editors work. Do you think remove it entirely? or add a couple more interesting further reading options.
- If Normandy landings is the broader term and D-Day is the operational codename/nickname you'd think the article would be called Normandy landings naval deceptions. Or Taxable, Glimmer and Big Drum.
- I've tried out several names, and with emphasis on clarity for the reader this one seemed the most sensible. D-Day is the widely (aka globally!) known term. Normandy landings is another term, but less instantly recognisable. In addition D-Day refers to a rough date, which makes sense in the context of the title (whereas action wrt Normandy landings could occur on a wider timescale). The code name was Neptune, but using that doesn't seem appropriate. Listing the three operation names I am opposed to because it could be confusing.
- Honestly, with the limited number of citations and size with it doesn't seem like its necessary - I would just merge the operations into the Normandy Landings deceptions sectione and get that one up to FA. Kirk (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The size doesn't strike me as a problem. Seeing as this is not a small article it would swamp the current Normandy landings article, and with expansion of the other sections (plus the addition of other deception operation to the same level of detail) reviewers would immediately recommend a split. :) The same problem applies to Operation Bodyguard (which will be a FA when I get round to it). I've carefully considered all of the Bodyguard operations and made a decision which ones have enough content to warrant separate articles, as part of my drive to build it into a Good/Featured Topic. Or in short; I disagree the article is short enough to merge anywhere useful. Thanks for the review. --Errant (chat!) 19:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've proposed the merger to Operation Bodyguard here, which I think is the best place for this content since about 25% of the article discusses the wider operation. I'm not sure if the FAC coordinator would keep this discussion open in the meantime or not. I look forward to everyone's comments. Kirk (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any further comments on the other issues? It would be really good to hear your thoughts. I think the merger request is somewhat of a sideshow from the perspective of the FAR. Apart from your objection to its length I think it has strong support (of course, that's up to the delegate). If it gets merged (high unlikely IMO) then it doesn't matter either way :) but it would be a kick in the teeth to have worked this hard on it and for you to get the FAR shut down over a minor point. Basically I'd give up and you can take on writing up this topic. :) which is fine, I'm happy to lend you the books :D --Errant (chat!) 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk has not contributed any further to this discussion or to the merge request he opened, despite editing a little in the interim. What's the process for moving forward? I'm minded to close the merge request as unsupported (its had no other comments bar mine, and Giant2008 below appears to oppose such a merge as well) so perhaps that means this can come off hold? --Errant (chat!) 11:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I commented on the name stuff below, I did skim some other books online which discussed these operations in more detail than you did so I think you could expand the article some more. The section comment I meant delete the section title or expand it; cite the further reading in the article or remove it.
- Thanks Kirk. Can you point to some of these sources? Just so I know which ones you've found with more info (my Google-fu is probably lacking :)). It's worth taking care here btw; there is one book about wartime air operations with some additional "detail" but it's mostly nonsense (well, actually its a jumble up of all sorts of truth from different operations), dated from before scholars interested in deception unpicked the truth :) Also if you've read Bodyguard of Lies - that's not a reliable source, in general, being written well before declassification of most of the usable source material. However, if you've found more detail I'd love to add itl. r.e. the section, I think it is fine and I am loathe to delete the heading. Single paragraph sections are Ok if justifiable and I think this one is :) --Errant (chat!) 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesketh, R. Fortitude: The D-Day Deception Campaign. Overlook, 2002. http://books.google.com/books?id=qtX0FVrwnHcC.
- Platt, O. Bodyguard: The Secret Plan That Saved D-Day. iUniverse, 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id=czXmbb0XxTkC.
- West, Nigel. Historical Dictionary of Naval Intelligence. Historical Dictionaries of Intelligence and Counterintelligence no. 13. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2010.
- Thanks. I can use some of the data from West to name the balloons etc. So let me work that in. IIRC, Hesketh doesn't mention anything much about these ops. I could be wrong so I will double check. Platt is a self-published source and so I am not happy using it, there's not really anything much extra in there, and the detail that is I am suspect of. --Errant (chat!) 09:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kirk:; I've added detail from West. Hesketh has no information on these operations (his is a good source but has broad omissions, and is limited by his own experiences). Platt, on deeper inspection, doesn't look a good source (self-published, no independent reviews or citations, author does not list any sources and on my own quick skim through there are a number of errors in his information). --Errant (chat!) 13:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- First off, let me say that I think this is a valid topic for a stand-alone article, and that having summaries of stand-alone articles in the main Operation Bodyguard article strikes me as a logical form of organization. I see the nominator's point that having all of this information in the main article would threaten to overwhelm the rest of the text, and don't see much advantage to a merge here. Hopefully this doesn't get closed over the discussion.
- I couldn't find the phrase 'D-Day naval deceptions' in google books both with a search and reading a few additional sources, and I always balk at making up things for WP articles without a secondary source to back them up. If the merger is rejected and this review goes forward the name should be changed to Operation Glimmer, Taxable, and Big Drum since that's the actual name and matches the other articles in the series. I suggest pinging some of the MilHist admins to move this discussion along. I think Dank is busy otherwise he'd probably have already given his opinion. Kirk (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"were tactical military deceptions conducted on the 6 June 1944...". Remove "the" before the date. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- Looking at outstanding comments above, there's the suggestion that the article be expanded and also that it be renamed Operation Glimmer, Taxable, and Big Drum. Expansion is fine but I'd much prefer that any name change occur after the FAC has completed. Can we also resolve/close once and for all the merge discussion? I don't think we can say the article passes the stability criteria while there's a merge tag attached to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closed merge discussion; no consensus for merger Kirk (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've seen little action here for the past week, and all items under Kirk's objection seem to have been actioned or at least acknowledged. Unless attention is drawn to something major that's been overlooked I'd expect to promote this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
