Talk:Bombing of Peenemünde in World War II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bombing of Peenemünde in World War II was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 1 December 2006 |
[edit] GA discussion
I don't nkow whether to put this on hold or not yet - is there a reason no book references were used for this article? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, simply the fact that I don't have any on this subject. The websites were chosen in accordance with the guidelines on reliable sources for 2c of the GA process, although that guideline is admittedly pretty subjective. I will try to get my hands on some books about strategic bombing, which may contain this subject. While they are very unlikely to say anything different to what is written here, it may give the article more verifiability. Thanks for the preliminary look over Jeff. Chrisfow 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any problems with the sources you've used, but I'm also not sure if this article is as comprehensive as it could be given the lack of non-web-based sources. It may not have much to add (my personal area of focus in college was the political side of WW2, not the military), but one never knows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, consulted books and guess what? Came up with a lot of extra content! Thanks for the nudge, I think it is a better article now, hope that you agree and that it can move towards GA. While these additions may affect the "Stability" clause in the GA criteria, I would have thought that since this is 'under review' it could be counted as the same as changes during a 7 day hold period. Anyway, hope you enjoy the new additions! Chrisfow 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm impressed. It looks more comprehensive and feels better, too. I'll give it a more thorough look over shortly and I think we'll be set. And I wouldn't worry about stability, I read that as "edit warring and other battle nonsense." --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Jeff, consulted books and guess what? Came up with a lot of extra content! Thanks for the nudge, I think it is a better article now, hope that you agree and that it can move towards GA. While these additions may affect the "Stability" clause in the GA criteria, I would have thought that since this is 'under review' it could be counted as the same as changes during a 7 day hold period. Anyway, hope you enjoy the new additions! Chrisfow 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any problems with the sources you've used, but I'm also not sure if this article is as comprehensive as it could be given the lack of non-web-based sources. It may not have much to add (my personal area of focus in college was the political side of WW2, not the military), but one never knows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA nom on hold
I've decided to put this article on hold. It's mostly strong but I'm concerned about this sentence in the intro:
- "Despite the attack being a success, it was too little, too late, and consequently did not stop the Germans from developing, building and using 'V' weapons against London and South East England."
As the third sentence of the article, this is obviously important. But it should be rewritten to use better prose, and also to clarify what the results were, exactly. It implies that the attack was at once "a success" but also failed in its long-term goal, which is hard to reconcile. Once this sentence is improved, the article can be placed on the Good Articles list.
As a future direction for this article, I suggest adding more information on the German reaction to the attack, which is currently sparse. Twinxor t 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed to see that this hasn't been changed, but it my opinion it's still a significant problem with the article. Please consider reworking this sentence and resubmitting the article as a good article candidate. Twinxor t 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I edited the lead section to show that the attack was a tactical success but a strategic failure, which is how the two aspects are reconciled. I have to say that I thought I had changed it more than that, so I will certainly rework it when I have time and resubmit. Thanks Twinxor for reviewing the article, and I hope to resubmit soon. Chrisfow 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Book suggestion
A book that you might want to consult (although it may be a bit hard to get hold of) is "The Rocket and the Reich: Peenemünde and the Coming of the Ballistic Missile Era" by Michael Neufeld. It certainly has some information about the bombing that isn't included in the article. Unfortunately I don't have it on hand right now so can't offer any more help than that. MLilburne 11:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
PS... and I do agree that more is needed on the German reactions to the attack, and the consequences for Peenemunde and the missile program. MLilburne 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks MLilburne, I can get hold of that book from my university library. Does it cover the German reaction to the attack? I agree with Twixor that that is something for beyond GA - I will get the book as soon as practical. Chrisfow 12:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. It is almost all about the German side of things so should be useful to you. MLilburne 12:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This one seems to be recently published, and can't but be useful: "The Peenemunde Raid: The Night of 17-18 August 1943" by Martin Middlebrook. MLilburne 12:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
