Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Western Australian emergency of March 1944

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.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Western Australian emergency of March 1944 edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/Western Australian emergency of March 1944/archive1

This article covers a little remembered, but significant, incident on the Australian home front during World War II. In March 1944 the Allied leadership became concerned that a powerful force of Japanese warships had departed Singapore to attack the Western Australian city of Perth and its port of Fremantle. In response, a large chunk of the Royal Australian Air Force was dispatched to Western Australia, and the anti-aircraft and coastal defences there were placed on high alert. This led to considerable public concern, especially when Perth's air raid sirens were briefly sounded. In reality, only a few Japanese warships were active in the Indian Ocean, and they withdrew after an ineffective raid. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the strategic situation in early 1944, and a reminder that the war was not yet won.

I started this article in 2009, and greatly expanded it in 2016. It passed a GA review in early March this year. The article has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are now also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

Great article. The murder of the crew of the merchant ship was a bit of a shocker. They were only imprisoned? Sheesh.
the only query I had was "and the resultant loss of warning caused concerns" isn't clear. What loss of warning? Do you mean inability to conduct effective air patrols caused by the cyclone?

Other than that, a great read and well done, an interesting episode in Australian WWII history. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I've tweaked the wording around the cyclone to be a bit clearer. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support / Chetsford
I hope my short review isn't taken as being indicative of a cursory review, however, I was simply unable to find anything in this excellent article about which to complain or suggest improvement. It is a fascinating topic that is well-presented in every possible way and I wholeheartedly support. Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, and those kind comments. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7 Same here. Great article, and good to see a topic like this being tackled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments Nick-D (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder by Ian -- I realize this has three supports but being somewhat familiar with this subject I'd like to copyedit and review; in any case I think we still need an image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by Ian

Nice work Nick, let me know if any concerns with my copyedit (speaking of that, "concerns"/"concerned" is pretty ubiquitous in the text so if there's one or two places you think you could reword, perhaps have a go).
- Thinned them out, including with some use of 'alarmed', which I think is warranted given that this contributed to a worldwide redeployment of major Allied assets as well as the events in March. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only real issue I have re. the text is that the link to Indian Ocean raid (1944) in Aftermath seems to pop out of nowhere -- I think we need to introduce it earlier in the account. Also the pipe "during its operation" makes it sound like this article is about a Japanese raid when in fact it's about the Allies' perception of one...
- That's a good point - I've moved the link to the para on the raid in the 'Japanese movements' section (the structure is the start of the raid is introduced in this section, and then what actually happened is described after the description of the Allies getting really worried and then deciding it was a false alarm - I think that this is a logical narrative flow, which helps to keep readers engaged - while also implicitly making the point that the Allied commanders weren't daft, as they were operating on the basis of limited information). Nick-D (talk)
  - Tks, Nick, that all works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- mostly looks appropriately licensed but I believe we should be using PD-AustraliaGov for the lead image and the Adelaide pic in place of what they have now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for spotting this. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool -- didn't look like the Adelaide image licence was changed, though, so I just did it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian - I've had a long day, and it looks like I forgot to press the save button after changing the tag! Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by JennyOz

In Kenney's list of 5 instructions, what causes the extra space between 1 and 2, or is it just my browser?
- Fixed (it was a problem with how quote boxes and numbered lists interact) Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the radar contact on 6 March, moon conditions and assumptions - moon conditions =phase? and does moon need cap M here?
- Yes to both: fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minister for Civil Defence - that's Alexander Panton ie not a fed min, so insert Western Australian before 'Minister'? (Interestingly, this, which mostly discusses the 1942 scare, suggests the portfolio was not official, "Panton’s role upgraded (at least in parliament and in the press if not in the official records) to take in the new portfolio of Minister for Civil Defence ".) JennyOz (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added his name, and tweaked the wording to note he was responsible for this rather than being the minister for it. Searching through Trove indicates that he was consistently called the Minister for Civil Defence throughout the war. However, his official bio on the WA state parliament says he was actually the Minister for Health and Mines! [1]. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your comments - I'll action them tomorrow Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose and JennyOz: Thanks again - I think that I've now actioned your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, very pleased to support. JennyOz (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.