- 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2024 [1].
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Title was a valiant but failed Allied attack on the German battleship Tirpitz during October 1942. The attack plan was like something out of a thriller, and partially formed the basis of a postwar movie. It involved a small Norwegian ship smuggling two British manned torpedoes through heavily defended waters. While the manned torpedo crews were superbly trained and likely to have crippled Tirpitz, the operation failed at the last moment when shoddy workmanship caused both of the craft to be lost when they separated from the bottom of the trawler during a storm. The Allied personnel attempted to escape overland to Sweden, with one of the British seamen being captured and murdered by the Germans and the others making it across the border.
This is a return to the topic of attacks against Tirpitz I've been working on over quite a few years, with the others covering air raids on the battleship. I created the article in March 2023 and it was assessed as a GA in April. It passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in December, and has since been expanded and improved. As a result, I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review[edit]
- Don't use fixed px size
- I've only done this for the infobox, where it's standard practice (not specifying the image size leads to lots of white space here with most images). Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gerhard_Flesch_(6983604862).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the tag used by the uploader to Flikr, the National Archives of Norway, which holds the underlying photo in their collection. It seems reasonable to presume that the archives applied the best tag here. It looks like the photo is from a collection of German occupation documents that the Archives holds, and would likely have the legal rights to. Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marking my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The intro could end by mentioning that the ship was eventually destroyed? Seems like a contextual omission now.
- There is a couple of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
- "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section." The last eight words are a relatively recent addition. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case we have "Allied" linked twice in the intro alone, which I think would be considered overkill by any standards. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Chariot manned torpedo and other terms and names in image captions?
- As a non-native English speaker, I had never heard the term "gales" before. Could be linked?
- Sure: done Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trondheimsfjorden (English: Trondheim Fjord)" technically "The Trondheim Fjord", as "en" makes it definite, but of course depends on what the source says.
- Seems Royal Navy isn't linked in the article body.
- Perhaps show the sinking ship in the Subsequent attacks section?
- I'd prefer not, as the operation which sank the battleship took place in a different region and was an air attack rather than a submarine attack. I've added a photo of the ship at Kaafjord though, as it illustrates the main focus on this section. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was one of the incidents for which Keitel and Flesch were separately prosecuted after the war. Both were found guilty of war crimes and executed." Is there an article about these trials or what they were part of?
- Keitel was found guilty at the Nuremberg trials and Flesch appears to have been tried individually in Norway. As these were separate processes and are well covered in the articles on the two men, I'd prefer to not try to shoe-horn a link to the Nuremberg Trials in. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The battleship was sunk there with heavy loss of life" This implies there could be heavy losses on both sides, but seems to be only on the German side? Maybe say "heavy German casualties"?
- Link scuttle in article body too.
- Very exciting storytelling, that's all I have. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tirpitz sortied on 5 July, but was ordered to return to Narvik the next day". According to our article on the Tirpitz she returned to Altafjord, not to Narvik, so just checking that this is correct. The Tirpitz article does say she later moved to Bogenfjord, near Narvik.
- Fixed - the source's wording was a bit confusing, and I've clarified this. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was not possible to use full-sized submarines as the shallow depth of Fættenfjord meant ...": but the Tirpitz was no longer at Fættenfjord, was she? Per the above she was either at Narvik or Altafjord. The conversation about submarines seems to have started after the attack on PQ-17 so I wouldn't have thought Fættenfjord would be relevant. I see from the Tirpitz article that she returned to Fættenfjord in October, but that would have been too late to influence the planning.
- The attack was always planned for Fættenfjord, as that was Tirpitz's home base and the British correctly deduced that she was going to return there - the article notes this. While the sources don't explicitly state this, it would have been because each attack required very substantial preparations so needed to be directed at a location where the battleship was based. As the battleship always had torpedo nets around her, conventional subs would have been useless at other anchorages as well - they're not given as a viable option. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I had a look through for the where you say the article notes that the British deduced she would return to Fættenfjord and couldn't spot it -- could you point me at the right paragraph? I agree that with that no change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the third para of the 'Attack force' section. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not excessively long, but I did wonder whether the details of why the British began to research small submarines were a digression. No problem if you want to keep it.
- I think that this is OK, as all the sources on this operation also discuss the development of the midget subs. This article is also a precursor to that on the more significant Operation Source that involved the other type of midget sub. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised to see that we don't have Able Seaman A. Brown's first name -- is it not known?
- Oddly enough, no source gives this. To make matters worse, his nick-name differs between sources: C.E.T. Warren and James Benson say he was 'Jock' Brown and Robert Lyman says he was 'Slim' Brown. Ludovic Kennedy just calls him Able Seaman Brown despite giving the full names of his comrades! I think that A. Brown is the best of the not-great options here. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"including as he believed that": seems an incompletely edited phrase?
- "He also argued that the use of the craft after the failure of Operation Title was a mistake, including as there was not a strong rationale for the subsequent Chariot operations": suggest "He also argued that the use of the craft after the failure of Operation Title was a mistake, among other reasons because there was not a strong rationale for the subsequent Chariot operations".
- That seems much the same, but with an extra word. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "including as" that I think sounds wrong. I just searched for usage discussions of this and didn't find anything definitive, so it's OK if you want to keep it, but for me it's jarring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made this change in case it's a British vs Australian English thing, as seems probable. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two harv errors showing: Kennedy 1979 and Lyman 2005 in the citations don't link to the works consulted section.
- Fixed: the second one was particularly daft Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's everything; the article is well and clearly written, and these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mike Christie: thanks for this review: I think that I might have now addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fixes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Marker for now. Comments to come shortly (got one other to polish off first). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- "manned torpedos": just checking on the variety of English used here. Both BrEng and AmEng use "torpedoes" as the plural
- Fixed - I'd used torpedoes elsewhere through the article Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Early attacks
- "Shetland Bus": our article title has it as "Shetland bus" (even though it opens with "The Shetland Bus ...": should the target article be fully capitalised, or should this drop the capital "B"?
- The sources I've consulted here, as well as the authoritative Oxford Companion to World War II, use 'Shetland Bus', so I suspect that our article is mistitled. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A small explanation on what the Shetland B/bus was would stop people clicking away to find out (along the lines of "... of the Shetland Bus special operations force," is all I'm thinking). Your call on this
- Another "torpedos"
- I can't see this one?
- You fixed it, but missed the one in the Lead: I've sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Convoy PQ-17" (and in Prelude section): should this be hyphenated? (Our own article isn't)
- There's no consistency in the sources here (some use PQ.17 as well), so I've standardised on the Wikipedia article's usage. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done to the start of Preparations; more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And finishing off:
- Preparations
- I see you've linked British Army here, but you haven't linked Royal Navy outside the lead, so prob worth doing that.
- Subsequent attacks
- "transfered": -> "transferred"
- "British movies about World War II": -> "movies" is a slang term that should be avoided: "films" works just as well.
That's my lot. I hope this is helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat: Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My pleasure - an interesting story very well told. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, another fascinating Tirpitz article. A few questions and comments from me...
lede
- on board a small boat named Arthur - fishing boat? ie emphasize not a naval vessel?
- Sources just describe it as a small boat or similar. I had it in the article as a fishing boat initially, but on re-checking the sources found that it wasn't actually called this by them! Bishop introduces it as a generic 'craft' for instance (p. 59). Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- with the other – a British serviceman – being taken prisoner by German forces - is "being" redundant?
- Yep - I've reworked the two sentences here. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
- anchorage to counter attacks using torpedoes - swap "using" to 'from'
- on the night of 28/29 January by 16 heavy bombers; no damage was inflicted.[18] On 6 March 1942, Tirpitz and three - move 1942 back to January
- had sailed with PQ 17; 24 were destroyed - twenty-four? to avoid not comparable numerals per mos
Prelude
- the shallow depth of Fættenfjord meant that - but in last section "ordered by Hitler to return to Altenfjord". When did Tirpitz return to Fættenfjord?
- In October. I'll move the relevant para up to help with the flow here. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- submarine service, Rear Admiral Max Horton, was - his article says "promoted to full Admiral on 9 January 1941" (Bishop p. 167 just calls him Admiral)
- would attach the warhead to the target ship's hull using magnets. - mention time-delay fuse?
- their crews would head for the shore - after abandoning their Chariots so did they have to swim to shore?
- The sources don't say, though this seems likely. Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- risky nature of the Chariot's intended missions - plural Chariots'
Plans
- head of the Norwegian Section of the SOE, Lieutenant Colonel John Wilson - is J. S. Wilson (John Skinner Wilson), was Boy Scout per Bishop and, per this from Further reading that article was "Head of the Norwegian section (January 1942 onwards)" and "attempt to sink the TIRPITZ (1942)".
- Thanks for this - added. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Horton and Wilson were jointly given overall responsibility for the operation - were given joint overall responsibility?
Preparations
- training at Loch Cairnbawn in Scotland - add at Port HHZ (or not mentioned in sources)?
- That term doesn't appear in any sources I've seen. It might have been the designation for the facilities at the time of Operation Source? Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- planted warheads on the battleship - imitation/replica/dummy warheads (too many 'mock's already to use that word), or use quotes "warheads"
- Interestingly enough, neither of the sources includes that proviso. It seems very likely, though this was very dangerous training so it may have been decided to use the real things. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- One man who he approached declined - "who" not needed?
- Larsen selected a boat named Arthur - fishing
- The boat was elderly, as was its engine - the boat and its engine were both
- to help the Chariot crews to don their diving suits - this is a very broad article on diving suits. Can we identify the type?
- Bishop on p. 151 has "Two men, encased in canvas and rubber suits" and on p. 156 "one-piece dry suits and they had earned the nickname 'clammy death'". This is the Sladen Suit. (Its image came from here.) David Grant in A Submarine at War : the Brief Life of HMS Trooper this book on p. 26 has Geoffrey Sladen in 1942 "working on a flexible underwater diving suit that used a closed-circuit oxygen breathing system similar to the Davis Submerged Escape Apparatus [DSEA]. The Sladen Suit, prototype of all subsequent British frogmen's apparel, was to be irreverently nicknamed "The Clammy Death Suit"... and goes on to talk about Larsen and Tirpitz. I don't know if Grant is a RS. I think Konstam mentions the suit on p. 19? There are many results for a search of 'sladen suit tirpitz'. Robert Macklin in One False Move here has "Sladen suit... prototype for the men who would ride the torpedoes at the Tirpitz.
- Yep, it was the Sladen Suit: I've added a link and a note on this. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- the hull of Arthur which the noses of the Chariots were to be attached - the hull of Arthur to which the noses of the Chariots were to be attached?
Final planning
- scuttle Arthur ... staff would then row to shore and hide in a hay truck - row what though, was Arthur towing a rowboat (or had one on deck) or had an inflatable?
- The rowboat just appears at this point in the sources! It's safe to say that Arthur was carrying it, but this is never specified. It's fairly common for boats to carry smallcraft. Nick-D (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Plans were also developed for the resistance - Alternative plans?
- The attack force then proceeded to Lunna House in the Shetland Islands to await orders to proceed - 2 x proceed, moved/transferred to Lunna House?
- collected by the resistance which the Norwegian resistance agent - 2x resistance, probably can do without second one?
- papers as a cargo ship, and a cargo of peat was embarked - 2x cargo, maybe a shipment or load or similar?
Attack
- Arthur sailed at 9 am the morning - add nbsp to time
- Larson responded that the hawsers - Larsen
- Larson then angrily threatened - Larsen
- crew of an naval trawler as it entered - a naval
- He also briefly inspected the cargo of peat but did not find the hidden British personnel or the Chariots - nor the warheads hidden in the peat?
- They had been fitted to the Chariots by this stage - please see the second para of the 'Voyage to Trondheimsfjorden' section. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Trondheim at about 5 pm - nbsp
- rough seas which turned into a storm - rough seas and weather which turned into a storm? or similar because the seas didn't turn into a storm
- At 10 pm, as Brewster and Brown - nbsp
- something had fouled its propeller - link Foul (nautical)?
- I didn't realise that we had articles on so many nautical terms! Added. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Escape
- They did not have cold weather clothing suitable - hyphen cold-weather clothing
- between Tautra and the Frosta peninsula. The - include peninsula in link? (has existing redirect)
- The next night they were given shelter and a meal by a Norwegian farmer. The night after they slept in a hunting cabin. - 'The next night they were given shelter and a meal by a Norwegian farmer and the following night
after they slept in a hunting cabin.' would be smoother?
- I've tweaked the wording here Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Allied personnel were then taken to an internment camp near Stockholm - include camp in link (has existing redirect)
Assessments
- failure to the 24 hour delay caused by Arthur's - hyphen 24-hour
- Robert Lyman concluded in 2015 - introduce (military historian?), add link and authorlink
- I've tweaked the para to make it clear that everyone noted here is a historian to avoid repetition, and added the link Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2019 Angus Konstam wrote that - intro and link
Subsequent attacks
- was briefly stationed at Bogen, and - add Bay per 2x previous?
- Operation Goodwood series of attacks in August - pipe link to Operation Goodwood (naval)
- A pair of the craft were also transported by submarine during a successful operation in which they sank two Italian ships at Phuket in Thailand on the night of 27/28 October 1944 - clarify, Japanese-controlled Italian ships
- Above Us The Waves was one of a large - uncap the
Consistency
- There are a few places where commas appear contrary to most of the format style. (Eg "On 6 March 1942, Tirpitz", "By April 1942, 30 men had" and "On 2 July 1942, Tirpitz and") whereas there are around 12 other sentences beginning with date phrases that do not have a comma.
- Likewise some Oxford commas seem contrary. Eg "pistols, and a small quantity of food", "accompanied by Craig, Evans, Tebb, and Strand" and "comprised Brown, Causer, Kalve, and Bjørnøy", but elsewhere eg "including extreme cold, heavy seas and gales", "The Chariot had a crew of two, a commander and a number two"
See also?
categories possible
- Category:Frogman operations
- Category:World War II British special forces operations
- Category:Special Operations Executive operations
Thanks for this very interesting account Nick. JennyOz (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @JennyOz: Thanks a lot for your careful review. I think that I might have responded to your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great Nick. Thanks for tweaks and explanations. I just made two very minor tweaks to tweaks. I'm very happy to add my s'port to this very well-told account. JennyOz (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]
Spot-check upon request. Is Angus Konstam a good source for WWII? Otherwise, it seems like formatting is good and sources too. Are there any sources here that could be used? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Konstam has been widely published by several major companies and has specialised on the naval war in Europe during World War II. Osprey, the publisher here, has a pretty good reputation. The Google Scholar search doesn't seem to add anything new - I've checked Jstor and Internet Archive for resources. Thank you for this, Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like this passes, with the caveat that spotting not-obviously-unreliable sources in military matters is hardly my strength. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.