Talk:United States war plans (1945–1950)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this one. It is a biggish article, it may take a few days to work through it all. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• All war plans assumed that the war would open... To avoid close repetition of "war", suggest replacing "the war" with "conflict".

  Y Good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Background

• Bush did not think it was possible to build a missile like the V-2 but with 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) range. This reads oddly, perhaps "Bush did not think it was possible to build a missile like the V-2 but having a range of 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km)..." Also suggest clarifying that the V-2 was a weapon of Nazi Germany.

  Y Sure. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Would the sources support a general statement to close out this section along the lines of "A series of war plans were developed over the next several years for dealing with any conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States and its Allies."

  Y Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Pincher

• Suggest clarifying that mobilization entails increasing the size of the standing army (the 113 divisions mentioned in previous section) to ensure no confusion between that number and the increased number of divisions in this section.

  Y linked to the article on mobilization. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• ...forcing a retreat into Spain. A retreat for who?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Zawed (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Still with Pincher:

• The most likely region for this was the Middle East,... suggest replacing this with hostilities

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The possibility of recapturing Scandinavia was considered... this is the first mention of Scaninavia. Perhaps the previous paragraph needs to mention the Soviets moving north in Europe?

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• was codenamed Caldron, and dealt with the Middle East. suggest "...which was codenamed Caldron and dealt..." Also just checking this isn't meant to be Cauldron?

  Y Done. Double-checked it against a second source to ensure that it was not a typo. Apparently, wikt:caldron is the US spelling. I blame Webster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given the limitation of the Soviet fleet in the region,... the phrase "in the region" is also used in the previous sentence, suggest rephrasing.

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Pincher finished, will move onto Broiler. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, isn't this something of a change of pace for you? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean subject matter and not my very slow approach? Yes. Zawed (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the subject matter; you normally specialise on subjects related to New Zealand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Broiler

• Although the Pincher studies were not accepted as a war plan... I am struggling to understand this because the Pincher section says it was a "basic outline war plan".

  Y Re-worded that. The whole process was an iterative one, in which a war plan was gradually constructed. At no time in the period covered by the article did they have a workable one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Joint Strategic Plans Group also drafted ... use the abbreviation

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Presumably the same scenario as Pincher applies, the Soviets would overrun Western Europe apart from Spain? It may pay to reiterate here given the final few sentences of the Broiler section discuss this

  Y Yes. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Soviet Union was expected to have developed nuclear weapons by 1952,... suggest replacing expected with envisaged to avoid repetitive language

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• To secure the United States,...} suggest a paragraph break at this point due to the change in focus of the existing paragraph here

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• An additional Army unit was created in May 1948... it is not clear what the nature of this unit and those of the USAF were? Delivery, assembly, special weapons?

  Y assembly teams known as special weapons units. Harmonised the terminology. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• ...to the bases in the Middle East whose bases? Would this be the proposed base in Karachi?

  Y Cairo-Suez. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• many mothballed cargo ships might want to link mothballed

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• ...Broiler, Frolic and Charioteer no context for Frolic at this point, that only comes later

  Y Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Halfmoon

• Royall, was particularly disturbed... it is not clear to me what he is disturbed about the use of nuclear weapons or Truman's position

  Y By Truman's objection. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• In three successive sentences starting with this one It concluded that aircraft production there is multiple use of "requirements"; suggest this be rephrased to avoid the repetition

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think the table needs a source and could it be placed to one side, like an image?

  Y Added. Yes, I can make a table float. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Offtackle

• But Field Marshal Lord Montgomery reported in June 1949 that the Rhine could not be held. It seems like something is missing here. I think you are implying that despite NATO's formation, the Rhine still could not be held.

  Y Yes. Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Montgomery's role needs a little context to explain his advice/opinion

  Y Good question. Added a bit more.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Outcome

• To build up the ground forces,... suggest "To build up US ground forces..."

  Y Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• Williamson needs a state in its location

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

images

• I think GTA Porta di Brandenburgo.jpg needs a US tag? The others look OK. Zawed (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Y Aaargh. Switched pic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That's it for me, apologies for the length of time taken. Zawed (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for taking the time to review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The changes look good, so am passing as GA as I believe it meets the relevant criteria. The article is well written and sourced, provides reasonable coverage of topic, and is appropriately illustrated. Great work! Zawed (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)