Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Air raids on Japan

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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.

Air raids on Japan

edit

Article promoted. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)


I have been working on this article for the last year, during which time - and with very valuable input from several other editors - it has been developed from this stub to its current length. The article was peer reviewed in April and passed a GA review in September. It has since been expanded and copy-edited, and I think that it may now meet the A class criteria.

Given the breadth and significance of the topic it covers, this is a big article. To cover the topic, I've attempted to use a relatively complex structure which combines chronological and thematic sections. While comments on all aspects of the article would be fantastic (and I'm sure that there are dumb typos and miss-statements lurking in its detail!) I'd be interested in comments on whether this structure works. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: just copy edit notes and a tech review from me at this stage:
    • no disambig links (no action required);
    • ext links all work (no action required);
    • some images have alt text, but not all: [1]. You might consider adding it, but it is not a requirement for A-class;
      • I'll fix this up
    • I'm not sure about the licence on "File:TBMs and SB2Cs dropping bombs.jpg". While the PD-US tag probably isn't incorrect, it's not as clear as it could be, I think. Isn't it PD because it is a US government photo? As such, using that tag would probably be clearer;
      • Fixed. The URL also needed to be updated.
    • in the Background, "(which was re-designated the USAAF in June 1941). Should the abbreviation be provided in full?
      • Yes, well spotted. Fixed.
    • "civil defense/s" is possibly overlinked;
      • Reduced to two links (one in the lead and one in the body of the article; given the length of the article I figure that this is OK here)
    • "the 'Flying Tigers') began operations" (should double quotes be used here?)
      • Yes, fixed
    • inconsistent presentation: "reach of the home islands at the..." and then "air force in the Home Islands" (home islands);
      • I thought I'd fixed all the instances of capitalised 'Home Islands'. Fixed.
    • "the F-13s were generally able to evade the large numbers of Japanese fighters which were scrambled to intercept them and the heavy anti-aircraft fire they attracted". This might be tighter if it were reordered slightly, for example: "the F-13s were generally able to evade the heavy anti-aircraft fire they attracted and the large numbers of Japanese fighters which were scrambled to intercept them";
      • I've had several goes at wording this sentence, and that's defiantly an improvement. Changed
    • "remained in his position until mid January", I think there should be a hyphen: "mid-January";
      • Done
    • "Civilians were to observe a blackout from 10 P.M." Not sure about this presentation of time, please see WP:MOSTIME. Perhaps it should be "10:00 pm";
      • That works for me - changed
    • "and over-crowding at its airfields - these factors reduced the". The hyphen here should probably be one of those pesky endashes;
      • Done. And well spotted!
    • "They began to arrive over the city at 2 A.M." (time, per WP:MOSTIME, as above);
      • Done
    • "large scale kamikaze attacks were conducted". Should this be "large-scale" as you hae previously used "small-scale"?
      • Yes; fixed
    • inconsistent: "as another 30 probables" and "claimed 26 "kills" and 23 "probables" for the loss of three fighters" (specifically the lack of quotes around probables the first time);
      • Fixed
    • is this missing something: "The Osaka was bombed for the fourth time" (The Osaka what?);
      • Removed the 'The'
    • "populations ranging from 323,000 to 62,280". Should this be the other way around? I think it is more usual to put the lesser number first;
      • Seems sensible; changed
    • stopped at the first paragraph of "Attacks on small cities" as it is midnight here. Sorry, I will try to get back to finish the review tomorrow. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "command of James Doolittle (who had been promoted to a General)". I think here it should be lower case "general" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms;
      • Fixed
    • inconsistent presentation: "The task force was the US Navy's main striking" (earlier you have "U.S. Navy");
      • Fixed
    • as above here: "US Navy aircraft dropping bombs" (in the image caption);
      • Fixed
    • inconsistent presentation: "claimed 341 'kills' against" (earlier you use "kills" in double quotes);
      • Fixed
    • inconsistent capitalisation: "raids with Kamikaze suicide aircraft" (later you use lower case kamikaze);
      • Whoops - fixed. I'd also over-linked 'kamikaze' here.
    • "On 21 June an additional fighter group jointed this effort" (might sound smoother if you replace "jointed" with "joined");
      • Fixed (that's what I meant to write initially)
    • "typically had only about a hour to respond" (I think "a hour" should be "an hour");
      • Fixed
    • "At 8:15 A.M local time the" (WP:MOSTIME issue as per earlier comments);
      • Changed
    • this sounds like something is missing "would be conducted on Japanese industrial facilities and transportation network." ("and the transportation network" or "and transportation networks"?);
      • Tweaked
    • "The bomb was dropped at 10:58 A.M. local time" (MOSTIME issue as above);
      • Fixed
    • inconsistent capitalisation: "the Japanese government's conditional" (earlier you have "Japanese Government");
      • Fixed (capitalised in all instances)
    • "for supplying Allied POW camps" (the abbreviation POW doesn't appear to have been introduced/explained);
      • Fixed
    • in the References, capitalisation: "The Doolittle Raid 1942: America's first strike back at Japan", probably should be: "The Doolittle Raid 1942: America's First Strike Back at Japan" (title case);
    • in the References, caps as above here: "Case studies in the achievement of air superiority", probably should be "Case Studies in the Achievement of Air Superiority";
      • Fixed
    • in the References, the Tilman work is missing a place of publication. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was there, but I've tweaked it to 'New York City' to avoid ambiguity. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I meant the Robertson work, which is now in Further reading (not sure why I typed Tilman - I'll self administer an upper cut). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on sourcing & citations Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • State/Territory formatting consistency: Washington, D.C. vs Washington DC vs Washington D.C.
    • Cities, you seem to be using "Major publishing cities no state, others, state." Therefore: Arlington in which state? Lanham?
      • Virginia and Maryland; added. I'm using the convention of specifying a location for cities which are either obscure or where there's possibility of confusion between different cities of the same name.
    • When you use, "New York City," is that because you're following the publisher's own statement of location? Compare "New York:"
      • Standardised to New York City. The different publishers use different names; I'll go with the Wikipedia article's usage
    • Determine the location via the Office's location: Haulman, Daniel L. (1999).
      • Washington D.C.
    • Annapolis. Your judgement on its major publishing city status. Remember it won't just be MILHISTorians reading :). Similarly "Melbourne." which isn't known for its presses. (Neither is Sydney, nor Canberra).
      • I've added 'Maryland' for Annapolis. I've left 'Melbourne' as is as there's no real possibility of people getting confused about which one I'm referring to.
    • Some periodicals have their page ranges, others don't. Consistency may be demanded at a higher level of review from the article.
      • Added for those which have page numbers
    • Very satisfied with treatments of volumes & series
    • At 260 notes, I'm not going to cross check sources-in-notes vs sources-in-bibliography for unused or uncited contributions. You may wish to do this before FAC, and I'd do it in a FAC review, even for 260; but I don't have the editorial time here and now (plus there's a measure of trust when someone gets almost all the Ts and Is crossed and dotted so well)
      • I checked that before nominating the article, so it should be OK
    • Polmar (2004), pp. 31 and 33 you actually mean Polmar (2004), pp. 31, 33 per your style
      • Fixed, and well spotted!
    • Otherwise good! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [2] (no action required).
    • External links all check out [3] (no action required).
    • Images all have Alt Text [4] (no action required).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals one error:
      • Szasz_534 (Multiple references are using the same name)
        • Fixed
    • The images used all appear to be PD and seem appropriate for the article (no action required).
    • Missing word here: "It was anticipated that Allies might attack...", perhaps "It was anticipated that the Allies might attack..."
      • Fixed
    • "...this was the first American aircraft over the city since the Doolittle Raid...", perhaps consider "...this was the first American aircraft to fly over the city since the Doolittle Raid..." (suggestion only).
      • Fixed
    • Typo here: "...B-29s which had to return to base due during raids due to technical problems..."
      • Fixed
    • Typo here: "...bombed for the fourth time in the month on 15 June 15 when..."
      • Fixed
    • "...remained in force until almost the end of the war...", consider instead "...remained in force almost until the end of the war..." (suggestion only).
      • Tweaked
    • The third paragraph in the "Aerial mine laying" section uses repetitive language in that you use the construction "Overall" twice, perhaps reword? (suggestion only).
      • Fixed
    • "...and the next day General Spaatz received written orders to this effect...", should be "...and the next day Spaatz received written orders to this effect..." removing rank at second instance following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
      • Fixed
    • Likewise, "...which was piloted by Colonel Tibbets...", should be "which was piloted by Tibbets..." per WP:SURNAME.
      • Fixed
    • "On 11 August General Spaatz...", as above.
        • Fixed
    • "General Arnold requested the largest attack...", as above.
      • Fixed
    • "While General Spaatz ordered that B-29s...", as above.
      • Fixed
    • Overlinking of Hoyt, Edwin P. in the references per WP:REPEATLINK. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. Thanks a lot for your comments and edits. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Some comments though:
    • The United States Army Air Corps (which was re-designated the United States Army Air Forces, or USAAF, in June 1941) No, the USAAF was formed on 20 June 1941. It absorbed the USAAC on 9 March 1942. (See [5]). The USAAC continued to exist under USAAF as a branch of the Army. Fliers still wore the USAAC badges.
      • Urgh, that makes my head hurt a bit. But fixed.
    • This strategy, which was designated Operation Matterhorn, required the construction of large airstrips near Chengtu in inland China Sort of. Actually, it would have been better to, and the original intention was, to operate from bases in Eastern China. The problem was providing security for the large bombers. can you re-phrase this?
      • I've added a sentence on this
    • Red link Kenneth Wolfe. Someone will write an article sooner or later. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • More points to consider, of a general nature:
      • I am not sure how much the reasons for the failed effort in China come through. Mainly the problems were (1) a new and untried aircraft rushed into service (2) the commitment to hauling the B-29s supplies in the B-29s themselves and (3) the sheer logistical effort required to mount missions from China.
        • Tweaked a bit to add this
      • Stilwell and Chennault did not believe that the B-29s would not have to draw on the Hump tonnage, and they were correct. Weakening the ground forces and the Fourteenth Air Force to support Matterhorn led to the loss of the airfields in East China. That Chengtu was now needed by the Fourteenth Air Force was another reason for the XX Bomber Command's withdrawal.
        • I think that might be too detailed for this article, but I've added a bit on the campaign's effects on the Fourteenth Air Force
      • Similarly, there is the matter of the reasons why the early bombing raids were ineffective (1) flying at 30,000 feet put the bombers above the flak and fighters, but also the weather and the jet stream (2) the technology of the day, particularly the Norden bombsight and radar, was not good enough. (I am particularly interested in the fact that 12 of 75 bombers were nonetheless shot down over Nagasaki. Any reasons for this?) (3) The heavy industry targets may not have been aimed at the Japanese "centre of gravity"
      • The force which attacked Yawata was attacked by over 100 fighters. I'm having trouble finding sources specifically on your points, but they are correct.
      • The Allies believed that Japanese fighter opposition was low because the Japanese had run out of planes, pilots and fuel. This was not the case; they were being stockpiled for the invasion of Japan.
      • That's discussed in the 'Air defenses' section. The Japanese also regarded attempts to intercept the B-29s as a waste of resources due to the poor quality of the available pilots and the advent of P-51 Mustangs over Japan.
      • Hansell had spent his whole career fighting for an independent air force, the centrepiece of which was the war winning ability of daylight precision bombing. This doctrinal clash was why he resisted calls for a switch to night time area bombing, and ultimately why he was replaced by the pragmatist LeMay.
        • I think that that might be too detailed for this article, though it does mention Hansell's view that the precision raids were starting to pay off and were more effective than area attacks. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, I promise. Have a happy new year! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again for your comments. Given that I'm hoping to take this to a FAC, the more comments at this point the better! Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Air_raids_on_Japan&oldid=468888151"