Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Operation Teardrop

Operation Teardrop

This is the first of a series of articles I'm thinking of working on covering notable actions of the World War II Battle of the Atlantic and I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on how it could be developed to A and possibly FA class. It's also the first major military history article I've worked on which covers a topic with no relationship at all to Australia, so I'd also appreciate it if any antipodean mistakes I've made could be highlighted! Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Interesting article! Did a quick pass for date formatting, plus other minor tweaks...

• You've adopted (generally, should be consistent now) what I understand is std US date formatting, i.e. month-day-year. However in that form I believe there's always a comma separating day and year, which I've added to the full dates. Now, I also gather that US (or U.S.!) military date format is the same as Commonwealth, i.e. day-month-year, however so long as you consistently use the general US format I would have thought that's fine.
• Made "U.S." consistent throughout, which is what you started with in the lead (though we seem to get away with just "US" more these days as well - again, so long as it's consistent).
• You seem to be correctly using "z" in "realized" and stuff like that...

May get round to more later but that's the style points from me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Many thanks for all those changes Ian. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I notice we seem to be back to a mixture of US and Commonwealth English spelling, with "centrepiece" in place of "centerpiece" and a few "ises" instead of "izes" - I think you've made the decision to go with US English and US date format so you might want to double-check that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks Ian, I'll run this through a copy of Word with US English turned on. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I (hopefully) Americanized the spelling yesterday. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

As above I agree an interesting article..

• The specialists were held in solitary confinement and subjected to "shock interrogation" techniques, exhausting physical exercise and beatings. On April 30, Kapitänleutnant Just provided brief information on Gruppe Seewolf's composition and mission following a second interview in which he collapsed unconscious - If this had been carried out by the Gestapo it would have been called a war crime, is there any evidence that the perpetrators were prosecuted
  • They were 'investigated' by the Navy after doing pretty much the same thing to Kapitänleutnant Fritz Stienhoff in his interrogation after the war. None of my sources mentions any prosecutions though. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • This is getting close to OR, but the documents at www.uboatarchive.net state that the US Navy ordered that the interrogators were to be punished for their treatment of Stienhoff and various other behavior relating to the U-boats which surrendered at the end of the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)