# Talk:Action off Lofoten

Thanks XavierGreen. I came here to try my hand at GA reviewing, but I thought I might be better occupied in copyediting. I hope I've made the article better! Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Action off Lofoten/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll review this article later today. As a disclaimer, I've made a couple of minor edits to this article in the past (mainly copyediting and adding a map). Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


### Comments
The German capital ships are called both battleships and battlecruisers - pick one (the article on the ships uses, after much discussion, 'battleship' so that would probably be the best choice).
The names of the British destroyers should be linked
Why did 'poor weather conditions' delay the battle? (it might also be worth explaining just how bad the conditions were as these had an importance influence on the battle)
Why did the action cease for 20 minutes at 6 am?
Can anything be added on this? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The seas were so rough that the renowns foward turrets were occasionally flooded by breakers.XavierGreen (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"Despite the fact that the destroyers' fire was out of range, the Germans mistook Whitworth's smaller vessels for much more powerful ships and thought they were heavily out gunned" - the first half of this sentence doesn't match up with the second half (the use of 'despite' is confusing)
I believe i have fixed this.XavierGreen (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"Despite the Royal Navy winning a minor tactical victory over the Kriegsmarine, the Germans considered the engagement a success." - this seems contradictory: if the Germans considered the action to be successful, why was it a RN victory?
Strategically the Germans were victorious because they prevented whitworths squadron from interfering with the initial German landings. Tactically the Royal navy won because the German squadron was worse off in terms of damage and they forced the German squadron to flee to the open sea from an arguablely inferior force.XavierGreen (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
"After the action had ended, Whitworth's force continued to search for the German capital ships. With Whitworth's force occupied" - this is a bit repetitive
The coverage of the battle and its aftermath is rather brief - can more be said on this? The British official histories might have additional material, for instance.
The action itself was rather brief, i have reported the majority of what most reliable accounts of the action have. The Renown and Gneisenau were fairly inactive for about a month after the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Can photos of the ships involved be added?
Are any photos suitable for use in the article? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ive added a collage of the three capital ships involved.XavierGreen (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That all looks good to me. I'll pass this review now. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


### Assessment against GA criteria
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Looks like most of the issues have been addressed. Can this be confirmed? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

In the reference below, is it safe to assume that this should be for Vincent O'Hara, rather than for O'Hare?
O'Hara, Vincent (2004). The German Fleet at War, 1939–1945. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-651-8.
With intelligence suggesting that the Germans were massing ships, the British sent out a squadron under Admiral Sir William Whitworth to deny German access to [[Neutrality (international relations)|neutral]] Norwegian waters by laying [[Naval mine|mine]]s in [[Operation Wilfred]] and prevent any German naval movements into the [[Atlantic Ocean]].<ref>O'Hare 2004, p. 17.</ref>
KConWiki (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
″The German force also held a speed advantage over Renown, having a top speed of 32 knots (59 km/h; 37 mph) to the battlecruiser′s 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph), but was slower than the destroyers, which could steam at 36 knots (67 km/h; 41 mph).[8] Thus, Lütjens clearly held an advantage over Renown, though the German force was significantly vulnerable to attack from Whitworth′s destroyers.[9]″
I'm confused, it clearly states in this article that the German battleships could reach 32knts and the Renown only 30knts, yet the individual pages of these ships all state 31knts. Some clarity is needed. Surely since all the ships could sail at the same speed, some other factors where involved in the Germans ability to break off the action.
128.240.225.24 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Did a cheeky little drive-by ce, auto edded, tidied prose and references. Parkes, Oscar (1957). British Battleships: "Warrior" 1860 to "Vanguard" 1950: A History of Design, Construction and Armaments. London: Seeley Service & Co. ISBN 085422002X. A 1957 edition can't have an ISBN, it must be a later edition needing year and orig-year. Does anyone know which later edition is the one referred to? Why are the book titles linked to google books, it seems pointless? Regards  Keith-264 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: @DonBeroni: Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Hope this helps Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Oops got the adressee wrong. Keith-264 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
No problem, babe. DonBeroni (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)