Talk:Operation Matterhorn

Good articleOperation Matterhorn has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2025Good article nomineeListed
November 16, 2025WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Current status: Good article

Images

A map or maps would be helpful; show locations of bases in China, targets in Japan, supply routes. The article refers to all. — Otherwise, the article is B-class. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Operation Matterhorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Matarisvan (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Matterhorn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 04:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Matarisvan (talk · contribs) 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Hawkeye7, I will review this nomination. It's a shame this review was not picked up for so long. I will try to get it completed within a reasonable amount of time. Matarisvan (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan Hey were are we with this review? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IntentionallyDense, my apologies, I haven't been able to start yet. I hope to get the review finished by the end of this month. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and image review

Hi Hawkeye7, I did a prose review and made some copy edits myself. I hope those are ok with you. I will post my comments on the prose soon, there are just a few. Also, the images don't have alt texts, would it be ok if I added these? Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, my comments on the prose:
Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, looks good. Here goes the review of the image licenses:
The licensing for all the other images is ok. Would it be alright if I added the alt texts myself? Cheers
Sure. No problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, I have added alt texts for all the images. As QPQ, you please add your comments to the Northrop YF-23 and Felice Beato FARs? Both have been open for a long time and your comments as a MILHIST veteran would help closing them. My comments on the source review:
Matarisvan (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder for reviewer just in case. Setergh (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, there are ~220 refs and I will review 5% of them, that is 11 refs. Spot checks:
  • #2: ok.
  • #9: ok.
  • #37, #38: ok.
  • #40: ok.
  • #79, #80: Both links to the National Archive don’t load.
  • #82: The original link to the RAF Watton Wes site returns a 404 not found. It has also not been archived well on archive.org, all 5 captures don’t load. You will have to replace this ref.
  • #115: ok.
  • #117: ok.
  • #168: ok.
  • Consider adding URL-access=registration to the two Times Machine sources we have used?
That’s all on the source review. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 79 and 80 both load for me. Ref 82 also loads, both the first and last captures are okay. Added |URL-access=registration to the Times Machine references. As a aside: in statistical sampling, it is the number of samples, not the percentage of the population that is important. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, everything looks good then. Promoting to GA. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RAF Chengtu

Perhaps readers and editors interested in this topic might be able to help improve RAF Chengtu, which seems to have emerged from one of the based around Chengtu. Klbrain (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 MOSNUM and MOSMILITARY

User:Hawkeye7 please explain how my edits don't comply with MOSNUM, when numbering is used inconsistently across this page. For example you changed "It took 63 minutes to get them all in the air." to "It took sixty-three minutes to get them all in the air." But the preceding sentence reads "Of the 112 bombers that were readied for the mission, 98 took off from India." Why is that? Similar inconsistencies occur across the page. You have restored various duplicate links like Hankou, Sortie etc. In relation to MOSMILITARY there seems to be a bigger issue to resolve. All the pages for different ranks of General and Colonel use capital for the first word and small for the second, so if that's how it's done for all the master pages, why are you using caps for both words? Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using caps for both words in military ranks is correct when used as titles, as is lower case of the second word in article titles on ranks. MOS:MILITARY: "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people, below. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general."
  • The article on brigadier general should start with a capital letter. MOS:TITLECAPS: "For Wikipedia article titles that are not the titles of works and are not in other languages, the English Wikipedia uses sentence case." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't address the issue. The Brigadier general page isn't Brigadier General, why is that? Why every time do you need to make the link Brigadier general | Brigadier General? Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Brigadier General" is used when it is the title of a person. Otherwise we use lower case except when starting a sentence or an article title, when it is sentence case. Because the article title has a lower case "g" and a disambiguation in parentheses, I use a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:NUMERAL: "Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). When written as words, integers from 21 to 99 that are not multiples of 10 are hyphenated (including when part of a larger number): fifty-six and fifty-six thousand, but five hundred and five thousand.". Consistency is not required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Matterhorn