Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Kita/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011 [1].

---

Operation Kita

Operation Kita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Operation Kita/archive1

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This article covers the dramatic voyage of two Japanese battleships and their escorts from Singapore to Japan in February 1945. By this stage of World War II the Allies were close to cutting off Japan's shipping routes, and the warships (which were loaded with supplies of raw materials) evaded attacks by 26 submarines and over 88 aircraft. Remarkably, they did not sustain any damage and all reached Japan.

The article passed a GA assessment in April and a Military History Wikiproject A class review in May. It has since been further expanded and improved (special thanks to Derfel73 (talk · contribs) for the map), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Check dates for Hackett - website seems to indicate a revision date of 2011, creation date of 2000
  • Well spotted. It seems that the website has been updated in the last few weeks, so I've updated the date and added in the extra detail which has been posted there.
• Be consistent in whether or not CombinedFleet.com is italicized
  • Done
• Be consistent in whether or not states are abbreviated. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Image Check - Yup, they're all good, all two of them. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm was reading this over and realized that the Empire of Japan, under casualties, lost "Several aircraft". I read the article over, and even did a search for "aircraft", and I don't see in the article how Japan lost those aircraft. Considering that they are the only casualties in the whole operation, I'd like to see at least something on that. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's in the second last sentence of the paragraph which begins with 'Another air attack was attempted' ("As a result, the only successes gained by the USAAF aircraft involved in the operation were to shoot down a Mitsubishi Ki-57 "Topsy" transport plane near the Completion Force on 13 February as well as several fighters in the area of the ships between the 12th and 14th of the month"). The source doesn't say how many fighters were shot down, unfortunately. Thanks for the image check and comments. I wanted to add some photos of the submarines involved, but the only ones I could find were of questionable copyright status or showed the subs after they had been heavily modified following the war, so they weren't of much use. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh. Well... yeah... there it is then. My bad... As to my "all two of them" comment, it had more to do with that I've done image reviews where there were a dozen plus images or half dozen plus issues, so having a clean two is nice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support: looks pretty good to me, Nick. I have a couple of suggestions below, which you can choose to incorporate if you wish: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of tweaks to the article, please feel free to revert if you don't agree;
    • They look good to me
  • in the lead, this seems a little misplaced: "in February 1945 to return the two Ise-class hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers and their escorts from Singapore to Japan loaded with supplies". Specifically for me the separation between the word "return" and "Japan". Maybe just change "return" to "move" (or something similar), but then that might cause repetition with the next sentence where it says "movement". (suggestion only);
    • Tweaked a bit, but I couldn't get more significant changes to the wording to sound right
  • in the lead, I think a transitory conjunction might make this smoother: "Due to the intensifying Allied blockade, the Ise-class battleship..." For instance, "Nevertheless, due to the intensifying..."
    • Done
  • in the lead, you could formally introduce the abbreviations that are going to be used for the United States Navy and the United States Army Air Forces;
    • Done
  • in the Background section, check the punctuation and caps here: "In early 1945 The Japanese Government assessed..." (I think there should be a comma after "1945" and I'm not sure about the capital "T" in "The");
    • Fixed
  • I'm not sure about this: sometimes "U.S. Navy" but then "USS" and "USAAF" - the use of full stops for some abbreviations and not others seems slightly inconsistent (but only minor, and I'm not sure if there is some Wiki rule that covers this);
    • According to WP:MOS#Abbreviations 'U.S.' is more common in American English. While 'USN' is apparently OK, in my experience it's unusual to see this in serious military histories and U.S. Navy is the more common abbreviation (happy to be proved wrong on this though!). USAAF is the standard abbreviation for that organisation, though 'Army Air Forces' is sometimes also used (I've used it once or twice to break up the 'USAAFs').
      • Sure, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this could be explained (maybe in a footnote): "unable to attack due to the prohibition on radar-aimed bombing." (Specifically, why was it prohibited? I assume because there was a concern about missing and hitting something that the Allies didn't want to hit, but I'm not sure);
    • That's explained in the paragraph which begins with 'USAAF patrols also made contact with the Completion Force' ("As radar-directed blind bombing was prohibited to avoid accidental attacks on the Allied submarines in the area").
      • So it is. Sorry, not sure how I missed that. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • you explain this in the lead, but not in the body: "The ships of the Completion Force were among the last Japanese warships to reach the home islands from the South West Pacific". It might pay to add a brief clause saying that this was because the Allied blockade was tightened here also;
    • Done - the three remaining large warships at Singapore were sunk.
  • grammar here (I think): "The use of freighters and warships to carry oil were..." ("were" should be "was" as "use" is singular here - I think, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not a grammarian);
    • Fixed
  • maybe state where this was: "and Hatsushimo sank after striking a mine on 30 July" (for instance "after striking a mine on Mars on 30 July..." Of course, Mars is not the loc, I'm just demonstrating);
    • Done
  • not a war stoper, but I wonder if the See also link is absolutely necessary;
    • Not really, especially as I haven't been able to find a source which compares the two operations. I've removed it.
  • in the citations, I'm not sure about this: "Morison (1959), p. 178". In the References it has "(2002) [1959]". I'm not sure, but I think it should therefore be "Morison (2002), p. 178" in the Citations. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about it either to be frank. The 2002 book is essentially a reprint of the 1959 edition, so I've used that date. Given that Morison died in 1976 and the book formed part of the first generation of histories of the war, it seems more meaningful to use 1959. The page numbers should also be OK for the 1959 edition of the book. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. It is a good read. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support -- performed minor copyedit but little here to fault; referencing, detail, structure and supporting materials all look good -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Support—My concern was addressed and I think the article satisfies the FA criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment—Overall it looks good, but I think the lead is not quite ready. It makes no mention of the vital role played by code breaking, nor the planned effort by the Allies to sink the ships. This made it all seem like a reactive response until I read the body. The lead also does not cover the important elements of the Aftermath section. I think that is worth a couple of sentences. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and comments. I've just expanded the lead per your suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "South West Pacific" is BritEng, but "maneuver" is AmEng; which are you going for? - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • American English - I've just corrected this Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your edits and comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.