Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore strategy/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 GrahamColm 12:51, 6 May 2012 [1].

Singapore strategy edit

Singapore strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual military article on a war plan rather than an actual war or battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brebner: formatting
  • Check for wikilinking consistency in References
  • Be consistent in how multi-author/editor works are notated
    • Should be. The templates have been used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need retrieval dates for Google Books, but if you're going to include them you should do so consistently
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • File:British_Empire_1921.png: on what source(s) was this image based?
    • No idea. I can provide a source to back it up if you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Queen_Mary_in_Singapore_Gaving_Dock_Aug_1940.jpg: "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published"
  • File:Avro_Vulcan_Malaysia.jpg: can you demonstrate that the government holds the copyright to this image?
    • The AWM says it doesn't. I've removed the pic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British_Empire_1897.jpg: see this conversation arising from the British Empire FAR. Basically, the cited source claims to have got the image either from Wikipedia or from Commons, and we weren't able to find the original source or verify copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Hey Hawkeye7, templates such as {{done}} are generally discouraged at FAC, as most slow down the page load time. Good luck! Auree ★★ 01:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Forgot about that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Support - Reads fairly complete to myself, a layperson when it comes to military history. Grammar seems fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nigel Ish
  • In the Origins section - the US was not a former ally - it was a "co-belligerant" in the First World War. Japan was a former ally, and it may be worthwhile discussing the nature of the end of the Anglo-Japanese treaty more. In addition, there probably should be more on the consequences of the Washington Treaty on the allowable defences for Singapore.
    • Removed the bit about Allies (see above). Added that the Singapore was specifically excluded under the Washington Naval Treaty. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a mention of the Automedon affair in the outcomes section? The effective admission that the Singapore Strategy was unworkable, and the capture by the Germans and subsequent transmission to the Japanese of these plans (and the failure of the British to tell anybody that these plans had been captured) seems relevant.
    • Will do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I will confess that I had never heard of it. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion on post war plans for basing of nuclear weapons at Singapore seems of limited relevance to the rest of the article and seems incomplete - it mentions plans, but not whether or how they were implemented. British nuclear weapons were based at Singapore, as were nuclear-capable Canberra bombers, and there were regular detachments of V-bombers, particularly during the confrontation. This bit should either be expanded or removed.
    • Another editor wanted it included. I will improve it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a bit more. Did not want to devote too much space to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article enerally seems a bit bitty at the moment - and the last point is tending to persuade me to oppose at the moment.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As FAC is apparently now a paid process I am striking my comments to avoid any accusations of corruption and want nothing more to do with FAC.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kirk

  • I've reviewed this twice already so maybe I'm biased but I think its a pretty impressive article.
  • The article is pretty long; specifically I think the Origins section could be more succinct.
    • The second sentence of the lead should be more clearly stated within the origins section somehow (maybe as a conclusion in the last paragraph).
      • I've added it a a paragraph at the front of the origins section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relative strength of the US Navy vs. the Royal Navy is complicated to measure since it could be compared in multiple ways: total ship tonnage, personnel and capital ship tonnage. In the pre-war period, The Royal Navy was ahead of the US Navy in total tonnage (but not by much), the US Navy definitely was ahead of the Royal Navy multiple times for the second in personnel, and capital ship tonnage was theoretically equal in the third while the treaties were in force (then it was also all over the place). I don't think this is the article to argue the 'largest' but you probably cite this (5th paragraph) with which measurement you are comparing.
      • That's not true. Personnel between the wars was comparable:
Comparision of US Navy and Royal Navy personnel 1919-1939
Year US Navy Royal Navy
1919 272,144 268,000
1920 121,845 220,281
1921 132,827 113,335
1922 100,211 104,649
1923 94,094 90,090
1924 98,184 89,128
1925 95,230 89,529
1926 93,304 89,850
1927 94,916 90,764
1928 95,803 91,096
1929 97,117 89,506
1930 96,890 86,841
1931 93,307 83,898
1932 93,384 81,498
1933 91,230 79,876
1934 92,312 81,021
1935 95,053 82,529
1936 106,292 87,350
1937 113,617 91,615
1938 119,088 100,870
1939 125,202 118,932

NB: excludes Marines and Coast Guard in both cases. USN source: [2] RN source: [3]

      • I don't think I was clear above (nice table btw): Throughout the 1920s, the Royal Navy therefore remained the world's largest navy but according to that table only in 1920 and 1922 the Royal Navy was bigger than the US Navy in terms of personnel; I assume the source you used meant total tonnage so I would add a citation to the fact and note the metric. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third sentence of the 2nd paragraph I would remove the fluff and merge it with the remainder of the paragraph e.g. (Rising tensions over the US Navy's building program led to the Admiralty developing a "one-power standard", under which the policy was to maintain a navy "not ... inferior in strength to the Navy of any other power" that became official when it was publicly announced at the 1921 Imperial Conference.)
    • The third paragraph seems off topic; the important bit is that the US wasn't considered a threat but I think that's a sentence or two not a paragraph.
    • The 5th paragraph I'm not clear what the 10 year rule has to do with the Singapore strategy; if you delete those two sentences its pretty good (other than my concern about the 'largest' navy). Similar problem with 6th paragraph, you could probably merge these paragraphs.
  • Other than that, way down in the Second World War section the sentence starting "At this time there were only two battleships..." seemed superfluous - The Admiralty considered sending capital ships to Singapore, there were 7 available but the one they considered sending was sunk. (and none of the ships in your list were Revenge-Class) Why no Aircraft Carriers?
    • Tracking the ships gets complicated. Trimmed per your suggestion, added a bit about the aircraft carrier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per my note below, I would probably say at the beginning of that the section the Eagle was based at Singapore until the DoW with Italy when it was moved to the Med. Also, I replaced 'old' with 'small' since I think that's the more important problem with Eagle. Finally, there's a disconnect between the paragraph (re-)sending Eagle vs. the next sending Indomitable, which didn't make it in time to join force-Z but was active in the theater before the fall of Singapore. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure there was a Far East fleet which was quickly recalled to the Mediterranean in 1939, maybe you should mention that (or did and I missed it)?
    • What I was thinking was at the outbreak of World War II the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle was on the East India Station and eventually went to the Mediterranean fleet after the declaration of war by Italy. Kirk (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the independence of Singapore is worth mentioning a little more explicitly (its obliquely in the last paragraph of the Fall of Singapore section). Kirk (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a couple more things, in addition...
  • It seems to me the picture(s) of the Singapore docks would be a better choice for the infobox or the 15" gun than the current pic. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Les3corbiers

(I am a French contributor and I am currently translating this article)

  • The introduction says "British naval planners did not expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" but it is written "British naval planners did expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" in the Plans section. Which one is correct ?
    • "British naval planners did not expect that the Japanese would willingly fight". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph of the Plans section : "In the event of a worst-case scenario [...] two approaches were considered". I do not find the second approach.
    • there are two. Re-worded to make this explicit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Utilisateur:Les3corbiers (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment

  • Do you know the name of the warship in the Admiralty IX Dock on the picture in section Plans?
    • No. I searched through the series of photographs, but none of them say. I think it is a case of wartime censorship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which type is the 15 inch coastal gun shown on the picture in Base development and when was it made?
    • The type is in the article. I tracked down the manufacturing dates for the guns as being between 1903 and 1919. I also dug up some information on the fate of the guns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the people on the surrender picture in Fall of Singapore is Percival? Are there any other known officers on the picture? What is the name and rank of the japanese officer in the center of the picture? If this is not known, the picture caption should point on him as not being part of the british forces.
    • Left to Right: Major Cyril Wild (carrying white flag) interpreter; Brigadier T. K. Newbigging (carrying the Union flag) Chief Administrative Officer, Malaya Command; Lieutenant Colonel Ichiji Sugita; Brigadier K. S. Torrance, Brigadier General Staff Malaya Command; Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, General Officer Commanding, Malaya Command. Sugita participated in the Battle of Wake Island, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, and the Battle of Leyte, and was present on the USS Missouri during the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. After the war he translated Japanese Army reports for the Allied historians. I think he later became Chief of the Ground Staff of the JSDF. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Bomzibar (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- No simple undertaking, this subject, so well done. Reviewed/passed for GA and reviewed/supported for MilHist A-Class and both times the article has been developed subsequently, so re-read it from top to bottom rather than going through diffs of changes. Specifically:

  • Coverage, referencing, supporting materials, and prose look good -- I just copyedited a couple of things this time round.
  • Structure-wise, article development and sectioning seem logical; I'd prefer to see more than just the word "Australia" as a heading but admittedly not sure of the best alternative ("Australian attitudes"? Perhaps you can think of something -- not a showstopper in any case).
  • Spotcheck-wise, I'm happy to give you a bye on this one in light of the one I did for Truman's Relief of General MacArthur in January but of course can't speak for the other delegates, who'll be responsible for closing this at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2012 (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/Singapore_strategy/archive1&oldid=1138471519"