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

This article previously failed an A-class review (see here) owing to lack of broadness in subject and some need of copyediting. This should all have been dealt with now, at least that's what I would say! -- Chris B • talk 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I think the biggest remaining problem is defining a few of the terms that pop up. North Front, 'The Rock', and a few other slang terms need to have definitions attached with their first use so we know what's being talked about. I can understand them through context, but readers who know nothing about Gibraltar may not be able to understand them. JKBrooks85 18:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added a note to "North Front", and if I'm not mistaken "the Rock" is defined somewhere in the lede. Can you spot any others? You see, it's fairly hard for me to identify colloquialisms because I am used to hearing them! Nevertheless, I must bear in mind that someone who doesn't would have no idea where on earth "North Front" is. -- Chris B • talk 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Personally, I found the article a bit disjointed and somewhat hard to follow. I think it'd be best, if possible, if the main headings could reflect the main phases of the war experience of Gibraltar. Oberiko 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any better now? Or have I made it worse?! I've rearranged some sections to complete the chronology and renamed various headings. -- Chris B • talk 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you could move the Italian frogman section to just after the German invasion plans? I think you'd have to reduce the size of the the table of attacks in order to prevent it from overwhelming the page, otherwise I'd have done the move myself. Any ideas on how you could rework it so that it wouldn't take up so much space? If so, I'd recommend putting that section right after the German attacks, thus having the article end with the return of the refugees to Gibraltar. JKBrooks85 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Fist off I will say that the whole article seems very poorly written, it is almost like a random assortment of information was called togather to form something a little more deatailed than a list and brought up to higher standards by the addition of citations without any real sense of what it should be. I have seen several sentence stubs across the section that need more information to be sentences in their own right or removed to allow the real sentences a chance to grow. Much of the article also seems to assume that we the readers are familar with the location and its general history (which I am not), and has no real sense of orginization or hierachy; the section header system in place is very abstract and (IMO) provides no insight for the readers on what info can be found there. Many areas look like they would do better combined with or spun off into other articles here. Put simply, your article here has a lot of content, but very little context.
  • The image of the two guys under the section "prelude" ID both men but doesn't saw which one is which; if you could work that into the caption, that would be awesome.
  • The section on the RAF invovement jumps straight to them being on Gibralter, without going into what lead them to be on gibralter in the first place; not that we need a new subsection or anything, but a few words about why the RAF deemed Gibralter important would be nice.
  • The first line in the section "Operation Felix" mentions "the war", but doesn't specify which war; could you be more specific?
  • The first section under the heading german plans has a capitalized "Operation", but no code name; if you don't have a codename then this should be turned to lower case.
  • The section on Operation Tracer seems to be out of place, like it would do better as its own article with just a few lines here; additionallly, the section was very confusing to me, I had a hard time following it and making sense of it.
  • Your notes and citation sections could prabably be combined, they seem to be doing the same job.
  • Combine like citations in the citation section. Case in point: #10, #11, and #12 are cited to the same source. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.