Talk:Operation Clipper

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / German / North America / United States / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force German military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

THe war was over in May '45. Why did they attack in November '45? Let me change it. Paul, in Saudi 14:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the detail comes from a US source. Not unreasonably, it focusses on the US effort and only mentions XXX Corps in asides. Anyone know of a British source that can add detail of the British side of the attack? Folks at 137 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed stub tag to prompt a review. Folks at 137 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A nice article, all things considered: it covers the subject in a wealth of detail. A few remarks though:

1. It needs footnotes, so that every fact can be attributed to a particular source
2. It lacks illustrations: a photo or two would be good, and a map even better
3. The Attack section is a bit long and should probably be broken down into subsections, if possible.

Regards.Raoulduke47 12:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]