Battle of Iwo Jima was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:55, April 16, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
Seabee's of the 133rd mcb attached to the 4th Marine Division landed and fought along side Marines starting with the first wave at 0859. They built many structures to include Chapel, Chowhall, runway, repair of the Japanese rock crusher, laying of miles worth of pipe, the list carries. I'm terrible at citing, referencing and fixing pages. Would it be possible for someone more talented and skilled than me to consider adding information about the Seabees to this article? They wore greens and shed blood just the same. They landed in waves as well from 0859 to 1600. They lost men. Blah blah blah
Can someone explain why the metric units are displayed first in this article? I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be the other way around... Magus732 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Because only 3 countries still refuse to use the metric system, USA Liberia and Myanmar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
~Concur wholeheartedly with Magus732. The Battle of Iwo Jima was a United States Armed Forces operation, and as such, deserves to be written as Americans write. Most of the article does use BEUs (British Engineering Units), but much still favors metric. That is not as it should be. DeeJaye6 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The entire Strategic Importance section is written with an anti-invasion bias and needs to be fixed. Throughout, the negative opinions on the battle are given as absolutes, with any argument in favor of the battle couched in conditionals, and vague negative speculation.
Can someone please fix this so that the article reads more neutrally? As written, the entire article now sounds like there was no reason whatsoever for the Marines to have lost so many lives in the assault. DeeJaye6 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This article seems to be very much from a US perspective (especially the pictures). I suggest that some content should be scavenged from the Japanese page --Ozhiker (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the very small number of survivors on the Japanese side, I would not expect to see any Japanese photographs of the battle. And, in fact, there are none even at the Japanese page you link. So there is no reasonable hope of balancing the photo selection; it's just how it is.
The same is true of other aspects of the battle, though perhaps not to the same extent. I think the article has made a credible effort to do what it can, including quoting the Japanese summary of the strategic position at some length early in the article. Perhaps the weapons section could say more about the giant spigot mortar (though this is already briefly mentioned in the "Japanese preparations" section) and the "Japanese preparations" section could be expanded to say more about the fortifications. It might also be good to include the story of the Japanese officer who managed to escape from Suribachi only to be nearly summarily executed for deserting his post.
The biggest problem I see with the article as it stands is the undue weight given to the skeptical point of view in the "Strategic importance" section, which also smacks of synthesis or original research. --Yaush (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There was no synthesis or original research regarding the strategic importance. Original research means there are no citations, which is not the case here. Synthesis means that ideas are presented that did not actually exist in the Reliable sources. There are no such ideas: experts of the time, and historians ever since have debated the point. When the decision was made to invade, it was based on the assumption that there would be far fewer American casualties, so the analysts have to consider the possibility that the planners were wrong and the invasion was a mistake. For example, William O'Neill (1995) says, "The painful truth is that Iwo Jima should have been bypassed, the failure to do so being rationalized afterward by citing the ... and expert assault divisions simply to secure emergency landing fields might have loomed as a gross strategic error." For a review of the literature see Burrell, Robert S. "Breaking the cycle of Iwo Jima mythology: a strategic study of Operation Detachment." The Journal of Military History 68.4 (2004): 1143-1186.Rjensen (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)