Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Teardrop/archive1

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 Karanacs 21:15, 17 November 2009 [1].

---

Operation Teardrop

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Operation Teardrop/archive1

This article on a major anti-submarine battle of World War II has been peer reviewed and passed a Military History Wikproject A-class review on 21 October and I now think that it meets the FA criteria. Any comments, suggestions and edits would, of course, be very welcome. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - A quick read-through reveals no major issues. Nicely illustrated, well-written and seems comprehensive; all in all, seems to adhere well to the criteria. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support 1c / 2c. Comment Dates are consistent. Morrison is incorrectly cited, its a named volume in a larger work, "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Vol. 10". 1c seems good. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've just tweaked that reference. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ta! Just notice Polman, Siegal and Y'Blood don't have the publisher's locations listed, but your other bibliography items do, could you? (Especially where something's a Naval Institute, even though the nationality is obvious, its nice to make clear). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well spotted - I just added those missing locations. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The first paragraph omits mention of two important details: World War II and Atlantic Ocean. Both of these are essential to an understanding of the subject. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just added those to the introductory paras. They're also in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for those checks Ealdgyth and Awadewit Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting and enjoyable read - I can't spot anything wrong. One question: where it says ""shock interrogation" techniques" - is there any additional information on what exactly they are? It's not wikilinked and searching for the the phrase on Google doesn't bring up anything useful. As it's one of the more interesting/controversial bits of the article, it'd be good to has as much information as possible on it. (Or if it's a quotation then it'd be interesting to know who said it.) Trebor (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.