Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Singapore strategy/archive1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment‎ | Singapore strategy
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.

No consensus to promote at this time. EyeSerenetalk 14:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore strategy edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I kept getting comments that the Singapore Strategy should be better explained, so I created a whole article on one of the most controversial strategies ever. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments: great work, Hawkeye, another very interesting and useful article. These are my comments in review:
    • CorenSearchBot reports no copyright violations: [1] (no action required);
    • no dabs, ext links work, alt text is present (no action required);
    • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
    • in the lead, please check the capitalisation of "far east" - shouldn't it be "Far East", as a proper noun?;
    • in the lead, should Prince of Wales and Repulse be in italics?
    • in the lead, all three paragraphs start with the same clause "The Singapore strategy" - is it possible to reword so there is some variation?
    • in the Plans section, I'm uncertain about the capitalisation here: "British, United States and Japanese Navies". I think it should be "British, United States and Japanese navies", as they are not proper nouns. I might be wrong, though;
    • in the Plans section, two sentences start with "however" in a row. Perhaps reword for variation: "However in June 1939, the Tientsin Incident demonstrated another possibility: that Germany might attempt to take advantage of a war in the Far East. However, this did not change the Singapore strategy, as the Kriegsmarine was relatively small and France was an ally";
    • in the Criticism section the links and abbreviations to the Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force should be moved up earlier in the section to where they are first mentioned (the sentence about 10,000,00 and 2,400,00 pounds);
    • in the Criticism section, I think the capitalisation is off here: "the Labor party's position" (specifically Labor Party);
    • in the Criticism section, this seems out of chronological order, which makes it a little confusing: "In 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies replaced the heads of the Army and RAAF with British officers.[29] By 1937..." (specifically the first sentence is in 1939, but then the second is in 1937);
    • in the In retrospect section, I'm a little concerned about use of phrases such as "most critics", "many historians" etc. These might be considered weasel words. Is there a way to avoid this? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Butting in, I also raised this in my GA review and I decided it was okay at that level if the sources Hawkeye cited used terms like "many/most critics/historians" (which I understood they did). On the other hand, given that now a second reviewer is a bit uncomfortable with the wording, perhaps it might be better to be more specific and just name a couple of them as representative of the pack and lose "many/most"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not usually refer to historians by name unless they are notable. Instead, I have re-worded the consensus as a statement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • I reviewed, copyedited, and passed this at GA not long ago, and the changes since then seem to only have improved the article.
    • Again performed a light copyedit for prose -- pls revert anything that's unintentionally altered meaning.
    • One minor grammatical point: As diplomatic relations with Japan worsened, the Admiralty and the Chiefs of Staff began considering what ships could be sent in August 1941 -- being pedantic, this could be taken as either the Admiralty beginning their considerations in August 1941, or the Admiralty beginning (at some unspecified time) to consider what ships it could send to Singapore during August 1941. If the former, then perhaps something like As diplomatic relations with Japan worsened, in August 1941 the Admiralty and the Chiefs of Staff began considering what ships could be sent -- or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tks for clearing that up... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This article is very interesting, thanks for taking it on.
  • Its unusual to have an A-class article without some kind of visual aid in the lead; I wasn't aware this was an optional thing, but I read the GA, A and FA criteria and its apparently optional. Something to think about if you start a series on 'UK Naval strategies of the inter-war period', I guess you could add a navigation template at that point.
  • The MILHIST A-Class style guide doesn't cover an article about a strategy, but the questions on war I think are appropriate here. I don't think the article's lead really answers the question: why did the Singapore strategy happen? You have to read the next section to find that out.
  • The lead also neglects the vague expected contribution of the RAN in the strategy.
  • The bullet points in Plans should be put in the lead.
  • The section 'In retrospect' briefly covers both the outcome of the strategy and the significance, but its rather short, and I think this could be expanded in both the lead and the prose.
  • Did the arguable failure of the Singapore strategy influence any future naval strategies?
  • 'Consequences' might be a better section name than 'In retrospect'. Kirk (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these points have been addressed, as far as I can tell. Kirk (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so:
      • The first two points required no action;
      • The bullet points in plans were moved into the lead, as was an explanation of the origins of the Singapore Strategy;
      • The "Australia" section was expanded;
      • The 'In retrospect' section was renamed 'Consequences'
      • I was still looking at the expansion of the 'Consequences'. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the update - I'd still like to see an image in the lead.Kirk (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This book might be of some relevance: Andrew Field, "Royal Navy Strategy in the Far East, 1919-1939: Preparing for War against Japan
  • You talk about the reactions of the Admiralty to the rise in tensions with Japan, but what about the Army and the RAF? And the Australians? I know that reinforcements were sent to Singapore, these should be detailed if you want to keep the RN's response in the article.
  • Don't forget to mention that the carrier Indomitable was intended to accompany Force Z, but she grounded while training and needed repairs that prevented her from joining it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I did a little copyediting in the lead and first section, and they look quite good. I'll wait on the edits in response to the comments above before I finish up. Does anyone know how Australian or British style guides handle paired commas? - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a style guide, but I believe that they are generally acceptable, if not recommended. I might be wrong, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:43, 10 March 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/Singapore_strategy/archive1&oldid=422078560"