- 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2016 [1].
- Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next FAC in the WW2 Deception series; Ironside had a lot of thinking behind it, but didn't really get the resources to make it effective. To be honest, the target was so far away from the realms of reality that it wasn't much of a threat. In fact, it was pretty obviously a deception from the outset. All in all events moved apace elsewhere and Bordeaux got left behind. Errant (chat!) 21:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images: the one image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised at inconsistencies with other articles, like "Operation Bodyguard" here and "Operation Bodyguard" on that article, and "invasion of Normandy" here and "Invasion of Normandy" on that article. I'm also surprised the first paragraph doesn't sum up the operation, with further details in the next paragraphs, but I guess that style is okay too? The map caption should link to Operation Bodyguard. And why is Bronx listed second in the infobox if he took the lead? Also, if the real names of the agents are now known, as most of them appear to be, why use the codenames so prominently? Also, what does the "Garrone estuary" refer to, and why does it link to "Gironde estuary"? Dd you mean to link it to "Garonne"? Also you say "The operation did not receive any resources from the Navy or Airforce..." Which navy or airforce? That seems to be all of the commentary I can offer; the references, formatting, images, and other details all look fine. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments! Good stuff. I've made a few tweaks based on your thoughts, to call out a few I didn't action; the infobox already has one link to Bodyguard (at the top), Bodyguard itself is an article I haven't got to yet (you can see my progress here) but I'd expect it to be in line with this article when I finish, regarding agent names the style of the source material is to use codenames I'm happy for that to be challenged but used it to reflect the sources more closely. Thanks for the review! --Errant (chat!) 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I can now support this becoming an FA. Best wishes, ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 05:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short article by FA standards, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I have the following comments:
- "The operation threatened an invasion of France..." - bit awkward - how about something like "The operation was conducted to support the invasion of Normandy by convincing the Germans that the Allies would subsequently land along the Bay of Biscay. It complemented efforts to also deceive the Germans into believing that the Allies would also land in southern France at this time (Operation Vendetta)."
- Rephrased using your suggestion as a base. Have a check.
- "Worried about exposing agents as false, the Twenty Committee sent disinformation via less important agents and with words of caution" - this seems a bit out of place
- I tried to make the link clear (i.e. the story wasn't sold because the agents used were less critical and used cautious wording)
- "In addition, Allied landings around Bordeaux may have seemed implausible because it was beyond air cover from the United Kingdom and lacked the normal physical elements associated with an invasion." - what were these "physical elements"? I'd suggest revising this and the above sentence simultaneously: this seems like a marginal operation, and failed as a result
- See above; reworked all of this
- "During the early stages of the war the Abwehr (German intelligence) had sent spies to Britain, however all of these either surrendered or were captured. Some were used as an extensive double agent network under the control of the Twenty Committee" - can you say that the agents were all these captured German agents? (this text is a bit unclear)
- Tweaked this a bit, see what you think
- "Bordeaux was an important port for the German war effort receiving large amounts of cargo, mostly raw materials, from overseas" - was this still the case in 1944? Only Spain and maybe Portugal would have still been trading with Germany.
- "the Allies intercepted communications" - did this involve code breaking?
- Not explicitly mentioned in the specific sources, sadly, but yes it would have done.
- "This force would spend around twelve days establishing a bridgehead before advancing to meet Operation Vendetta formations (another deception operation targeting the Mediterranean coast of France)" - bit unclear (the deception vs deception plan gets a bit mixed up)
- Most of the para starting with "Ironside began on 23 May 1944" is currently unreferenced
- If the Twenty Committee regarded Ironside as being fairly unconvincing due to the lack of pre-invasion activity over the targeted region, why was it conducted? - was it done because it could be, and in case it worked?
- None of the sources really cover this; but I will double check. In short, it was done because the LCS thought it was a good idea.
- "if still trusted" - by whom?
- "her handlers" - the Germans?
- "his handlers" - as above
- "One of the most critical Bodyguard agents, Garbo, became involved on 5 June" - why was Garbo involved in this unconvincing plot if the LCS wanted to limit it to more expendable double agents?
- "Garbo explicitly noted that he was unsure of his informant and skeptical of the report." - I'd suggest moving this up
- Refactored this and the above to be clearer (hopefully)
- If the operation stopped a full armoured division being sent to face the Allied invasion of Normandy, was it really unsuccessful? This seems a good result for the very limited resources used. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @ErrantX: The last of my comments seems to still be unactioned. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes sorry I got distracted by RL. Give me a day or two :) --Errant (chat!) 07:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nick-D: I think I've got all your points now :) sorry it took so long! Regarding the unsuccessful thing; you are right and I've reworked the article to show that it was less impactful than some of the other deceptions (whcih Crowdy does explicitly call out, so that's much better). Great comments :) --Errant (chat!) 10:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about how this has ended up: if the sources support it (and I think that they do, though you may have a different take based on your wider reading and knowledge) it would be better to say that historians views on the results of the operation differ somewhat: I own the Howard and Levine books, and Howard says that there was no impact, and Levine says that there was probably no impact (at best a slight delay to one division moving). I haven't read Latimer, but he seems to have a somewhat different view. I used a similar approach when the sources disagreed in Battle of Arawe#Aftermath which might be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, so what's your specific concern here? Around the division delaying and whether that was due to this operation or not? Fair point around that I'll take a look through the sources again and re-try. I'm generally cautious of saying things like "Historians disagree" unless a source says that (which I haven't got) which is probably why this has arisen :) --Errant (chat!) 11:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the current material is a bit tricky for readers to navigate, and you're missing the opportunity to include a summary of assessments of the deception in the lead. I don't think that it's OR to say that there are differing views when there obviously are. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Tend to agree with Nick here. It's great that you want to err on the side of caution but the "historians disagree" thing is just a way into giving the differing opinions. You could every couch it as something like "A and B say this, while C says that" and let the reader gather that there's some disagreement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: & @Nick-D:, I think I've now addressed this using the sort of language you've suggested :) See what you think! --Errant (chat!) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Succinct but, I think, quite justified article in this series. Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited throughout so pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning. That aside, pretty happy with prose, content and structure, except for:
- Lead: Don't think I'd use "unsuccessful" in the opening sentence – is it assumed that all operations are successful unless otherwise noted? In any case, as Nick also points out, the last bit of the Impact section suggests it wasn't entirely unsuccessful.
- Infobox: "Agents Bronx, Bronx and Garbo" – there were two Agent Bronxes?
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Ian Rose[edit]
Sources look reliable and I fixed a couple of formatting inconsistencies; outstanding points:
- Is Levine 2011 or 2012?
- Looks a bit odd that the Macintyre book (assuming that's what it is) has a full date instead of the more conventional year -- if a book I think I'd just go year anyway...
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian! Thanks for the review; I've sorted the bits you've brought up I believe. Cheers. --Errant (chat!) 10:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.