Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Anglo-Japanese Alliance

Anglo-Japanese alliance

I've nominated this article for peer review as I would like it to be either brought up to GA-class, or if my own edits have already brought it to that level, I would like it to be rated as such.

Rupa zero (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou

A well-written but uncited article. These are my proposals:

• "London at what is now the Lansdowne Club, ". Avoid external links like this one within the main text. Use instead proper citation using Template:cite web etc.
• The article has almost no citations, and the one existing is mixed with the references.
• You link sometimes single years, sometimes you avoid doing that, then you do not link full dates ... Inconsistencies. Check WP:MoS.
• "The Anglo-Japanese Alliance officially terminated on August 17 1923." Stubby paragraph. No further analysis surrounding this event?
• Format properly references adding ISBNs where possible, and use Template:cite book.
• "See also" goes before "references", but I would recommend to get rid of the "See also" section and incorporate its links into the main text.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Toddy1

I have gone through it section by section. In some cases I have criticised the lack of mention of issues at some points in the structure when they are sort of mentioned in other later parts of the structure.

Main faults:

• Lack of citations.
• Motivations section - does not mention Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. One effect of this war was that Japan was taken more seriously. Was the issue of the who annexed Hawaii a factor in Japan wanting an alliance with Britain? Once the 1902 treaty had been signed Japan felt that Japan was now recognised as on a par with Western Nations.
• Terms of 1902 treaty - the understanding that contemporary writers had during he Russo-Japanese War was that if France joined the war on Russia's side, then Britain would join the war on Japan's side. The summary of the treaty here is insufficiently clear to say whether this understanding was true.
• Racism issue - at this time there were a lot of Japanese people who wanted to emigrate, and a cause of friction was white racism towards Japanese immigrants who wanted to emigrate to Australia and the West of Coast of the USA. Australian racism was problem to Britain.
• Regarding Japanese loyalty in WWI, that depends on your point of view. This issue needs discussing fairly describing what Britain hoped/asked for and what Japan gave, and why they did not give as much as Britain wanted.
• Effects of the treaty - it is confusing to have stuff here that might be better placed in different early sections. The stuff about cultural/information/technology exchange etc. might be convincing were it not for the fact that cultural exchange had been going on from the beginning of the Meiji era.
• Limitations - putting the racial issues here implies that they were at the end - actually they were present in 1900. The bank issues need to be explained properly and dispassionately so that one could assess whether this was a fair judgement by banks.
• Demise of the treaty - this section is very much POV. Seems to imply that it was Japan's fault. There are several alternative contemporary/near-contemporary POVs:
  • It was a good alliance for Britain and should have continued. Blame Churchill, who was half-American for Britain quitting the alliance and offending Japan. Admiral Barry Domvile expounded this POV in one of his books.
  • It was a good alliance for Britain, but it was clear that if the alliance continued the Britain would find itself in an alliance again the USA, and it was not in Britain's interests to risk war with the USA.

--Toddy1 (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)