Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2016 [1].

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the little-known series of bombardments on Japanese cities conducted by US, British and New Zealand warships during the last weeks of World War II. These attacks sought to provoke the Japanese into committing their reserve aircraft force to battle. While the Japanese didn't take the bait, the bombardments inflicted significant damage on industrial facilities and cities. Two American submarines also conducted much smaller-scale bombardments, with one of them even landing a small group of sailors who booby-trapped a railway line.

I've been working on this article on and off for five years. As there's no single, comprehensive, account of the attacks, I've needed to piece the article together from a surprisingly large number of sources sourced from multiple libraries and websites. While all the attacks are now covered in detail, the level of detail does vary a little bit. The article was a DYK in 2011, and passed a GA review last February. I successfully nominated it for a Military History Wikiproject A-class review earlier this year, and it passed in early March. I have since further copy-edited and expended the article, and am hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Great work. It is satisfying that we now have a comprehensive account of the attacks. I just have one minor comment. The article says that 34 Allied prisoners of war died in the bombardments. Is this figure correct? The article says that 5 were killed in the first attack on Kamaishi and 27 in the second, which adds up to 32. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Roskill, Stephen W. (1961), listed in the bibliography does not appear to be among the cited sources. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, and for spotting those errors: I've just fixed both of them. I really should be able to add up! Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - Support on prose and content. I have not checked sources. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: It looks good overall, but I do have a few concerns:

  • There's redundant wording. Please trim back use of 'also', 'again', 'further', and 'in addition' per eliminating redundancy.
  • Can the vagueness be resolved? I.e. instances of 'several' and 'small number'. (However, if that is the original wording from the source, I'll understand if not much can be done.)
    • Tweaked a bit, but the sources do not provide exact figures, and in general any figures would be unreliable approximations based on flawed wartime assesments or not useful to readers in this context anyway. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that restrictive clauses beginning with 'which' should use a comma or begin with 'that'.
    • "...against the Allied invasion which was expected...",
    • "...groups of aircraft carriers which formed the...",
    • "...with the aircraft which were being held in reserve...",
    • "...the fleet of ships which carried...",
    • "...18/19 July which destroyed or damaged...",
    • "...disruption to vital services which caused the factory...",
    • "...fire on small groups of ships which were probably fishing..."
    • "...and comprised the ships which had bombarded the city..."
    • "...force of American submarines which had been operating..."
    • "...general-purpose bombs which were used by Allied..."
    • "...the industrial facilities which suffered little damage..."
  • "...urban area and essential services, however": the 'however' should start this sentence.
    • Done, and the sentence tweaked so it reads better. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...base at Kushimoto, a landing field near Cape Shionomisaki and a radio station": is a comma needed before the 'and', or is the clause explaining the purpose of the base?
    • I don't believe that a comma is needed before an 'and' at the end of sentences like this. The base is identified as a seaplane base. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the interest of getting through this, I added the comma. I think Prae has a point that there's a possible (but not likely) misreading without it. Generally, I don't give comma advice, I get very little love for that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be clearer to use a hyphen when listing the shell sizes in combination with the quantity. Hence: "803 16-in (410 mm) shells". (Some national numbering standards use a space instead of a comma, so it can prove a little confusing.)
    • That's a good idea, and solves a problem with this wording which Dank noted during the A-class review but which we (or at least I) couldn't think of a solution for. Done. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...experimental 5-inch rocket launcher...": these units should be presented in a manner consistent with the rest of the article. I.e. "...experimental 5-in (127 mm) rocket launcher...".
  • Terms should be linked: calibers (-> caliber); home islands (-> Japanese archipelago).
    • Linked, with second being a bit of a miss on my part: thanks for spotting it. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider using {{sfn}} for your references so they are linked to the bibliography entry.
    • While I frequently (though not always) use that format now, it's not a FA requirement. Given that the number of references used isn't huge, I don't think that readers will have problems matching the cites with the books. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Praemonitus. I'll respond tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again - I think that I've now actioned all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Thanks for the ping, Nick, and thanks for looking at prose, Praemonitus. Concerning "16-in", hyphens are just a generally vexed issue and we often can't find consensus on usage. On the "which" question: there are many writers (including Nick) who use what's commonly called the "restrictive which" a lot. AHD says this use of which with restrictive clauses is very common, even in edited prose, and it's even more common in BritEng than among Americans. Twenty years ago, I personally didn't find the usage notes of the major dictionaries very helpful, when they existed at all; nowadays, they're plentiful and useful, and often used to settle questions like these. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Caveat: since "which" can be restrictive or nonrestrictive, it's important to keep an eye out for garden paths. That is, if the first few words after "which" don't clarify whether it's meant to be restrictive, then "that" will improve readability. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Praemonitus, I hope that helps. Also ... I just had a look at your comments in FACs and TFARs ... excellent work, carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a note on my note: Nick-D is Australian. I'm referring to "BritEng" here only because most of the Australian writers I work with talk about BritEng, and aim for a style that is more or less BritEng. When Australians say "AugEng", I say that too ... I'm not trying to inject a bias in favor of BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for those comments Dank. I've tried to write the article in American English given its content, but it's a language I'm rather inexpert in at times! ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- recusing from coord duties, I missed this one at MilHist ACR but it looks like the hard work's been done, just a few tweaks prose/formatting-wise (happy to discuss anything), no concerns with structure, tone or comprehensiveness (though admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert) and the choice of images seems particularly good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- see no issues re. reliability, and formatting looks good (I tweaked one inconsistency) but re. Blair, I wouldn't expect an OCLC when you have an ISBN (probably all the books have OCLCs and I assume there's nothing special about this one). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Allied_naval_bombardments_of_Japan_during_World_War_II/archive1&oldid=1079646486"