Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Raid at Cabanatuan

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.

---

• Promoted -MBK₀₀₄ 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Raid at Cabanatuan

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib)

• Featured article candidates/Raid at Cabanatuan/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review since I believe it meets all of the criteria. The article has already went through the GA process and I would like to get this to FAC at some point. I want to ensure it goes along with the project's MOS requirements and would welcome any comments. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a really good article, but I think that it's first sections need a little bit more work:
  • Why is the fact that US forces were returning to Bataan highlighted in the second para of the lead? This was a relatively minor part of the liberation of Luzon and not near the location of the camp

    The lead is summarizing the whole article, so a one-sentence mention on the background section was included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

    • • Sorry, but I still don't see the relevance of the liberation of Bataan given that this camp wasn't there and the article doesn't make any connection between this part of the liberation of Luzon and the raid. The body of the article also doesn't state that the prisoners were fearing execution during the liberation of Luzon - it's actually stated (with a supporting citation) that the US Army feared the prisoners would be killed, and not the prisoners themselves. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

        I've added a sourced statement at the end of the "POW camp" section stating that the prisoners were fearful of being executed. In addition, there is further coverage in the last paragraph at the end of the "strategy" section. For a specific link beyond what is already present about their feared possible execution, I can get other sources that focus on the approaching American forces as another reason they were fearful. I believe that the POWs were listening to their radio about the approaching Army and that led to speculation, but I'll need to revisit some library sources as the books I own don't cover it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

        • I've replaced return to Bataan in the lead with return to Luzon, as this appears to be what's meant. Please revert if I'm wrong though. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit surprised by the claim that "The rescue allowed the prisoners to tell of the death march and prison camp atrocities, which sparked a new rush of resolve for the war against Japan" and subsequent claims that the Japanese were still trying to hide news of the Bataan death march - the Bataan death march and other abuses committed against Allied POWs had been publicised well before 1945

    It was additional viewpoints of more soldiers who survived the march and could continue to add more details on what occurred. The main cause for the new U.S. support was over how the Japanese had treated the prisoners, rather than the march, which was already known. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • The first para in the background section presents a very simplistic account of the fall of the Phillipines. In particular:
    • I don't think that the US and Phillipino forces in the Phillipines in 1941/42 were "already stationed in the Philippines as a deterrent against Japanese aggression in the Pacific" - they were there to defend the Phillipines from attack

      I reworded this to specify. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

    • It's irrelevant to state that "However, Roosevelt decided to move the majority of the available troops to the Western Front against Hitler's forces" - in 1942 the US had no way at all of getting soldiers to the Phillipines given Japanese naval and air superiority in the western pacific, and this was understood before the Pacific War broke out. It wasn't until 1944 that this was feasible, and even that was earlier than expected. Moreover, it's not even true that Europe received initial priority for US troops : the first two US Army combat divisions to be deployed overseas were sent to Australia in early 1942 to start preparations for a counter offensive against Japan and much of the US Navy's Atlantic Fleet was sent to the Pacific during the same period.

Removed the statement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• • A map of the camp and surrounding area would be very useful

    I have planned on adding one for awhile, and hope to get somebody to help develop one. I've scanned several drawings and images of the camps to be compiled into a detailed image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think that 'Rangers' and 'Scouts' should be capitalised

    The respective articles capitalize them as do the several books that are sourced to this article. It would seem inconsistent not to do so. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Are the two links in the 'see also' section necessary? Neither seem really relevant to the topic of this article (the raid).

    I removed them for now. Ideally there would be an article about the camp itself and those two would probably be worked into that article. However, since the focus is on the rescue, then they aren't really related. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'll get to resolving these early next week as I'll be out of town this weekend. Again, thank you, these comments are helpful. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no disambig links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • all images except the one in the infobox have alt text, could it be added to this one as well?

    I've already added the alt text, but it looks like the infobox template isn't set up to handle alt text. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

    • I've fixed this, the parameter just needs to go in the image field. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Planning and preparation section "30 miles" (in the third paragraph "30 miles behind Japanese") could have a convert placed on it;

    I didn't include it as it was already mentioned above and seemed redundant to add it again. If it was in a different section, then that would seem to make more sense. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • In the Depictions in film section, in the final section the quotation marks have been turned on but haven't been turned off (i.e you have them at the start of the quote, but do not close them);

    Nice catch, fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Rottman should be before Sides in the Bibliography section (alphabetically). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

    There was a time when I knew the alphabet... Thanks for spotting that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support: all my comments have been addressed or explained to my satisfaction. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wow. Stories like this make reviewing these article for A-class assessment totally worth it. Good luck at FAC! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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 discussion.