# Talk:Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom

At inception, this article is sourced almost exclusively to a single PhD thesis. Additional possible sources:

Preparing for Weltpolitik: German Sea Power Before the Tirpitz Era by Lawrence Sondhaus Factotem (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Relevant pages scanned and incorporated into the article. Factotem (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany and the Winning of the Great War at Sea by Robert K. Massie – Might be a source for the currently uncited statement in the Aftermath section about the objectives of German raids during the First World War. GBooks preview does not provide page numbers. Factotem (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Cited to alternate source now. Factotem (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: The map is good, but I think that "upright=1.7" is a bit large. It takes up half my screen. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Takes up about a sixth on mine. I'm not too keen on leaving it at the default thumb size because the text becomes illegible, but feel free to amend it as you see fit. Factotem (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: [1] might have something for this subject. Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I searched the site for a few terms I know in German relating to plans for the invasion of England (the name those pesky Germans seem to insist on using when they mean the UK) or operations against Antwerp, but nothing came up. Factotem (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll start this in a few days, but initial read through looks good.  Made a couple of tweaks here--there was an incomplete sentence in invasion literature section.  also reworked verbs to there was less passive voice.  Ping me when you've had a chance to look it over.  Haven't seen much on Erskine Childers or Le Queux recently.  :)  Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I recast your edit on Goltz's invasion idea. I think it's a bit much to call it a plan, and I'm anxious to make it clear that the invasion novel came some 2 to 3 years after his suggestion was shelved. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Per WP:BRD, I've reverted this edit, which placed an infobox in the lead. I'm ambivalent about the infoboxes generally, but this edit was dubious. There was no actual conflict, so the use of the military conflict infobox is questionable. It was titled as the "Imperial German invasion of the United Kingdom", when there was barely any plans for such an invasion, let alone an actual attempt. It listed British commanders and leaders that are nowhere mentioned in the article. And it listed strengths that were considered but never actually allocated to an invasion. Happy to discuss. Factotem (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)