Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air raids on Japan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 11:28, 7 April 2012 [1].

Air raids on Japan[edit]

Air raids on Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big article on an important topic. It covers the air raids which were conducted by the United States Army Air Forces and Navy and (to a much lesser extent) British Royal Navy against the Japanese home islands throughout World War II. These raids, which included the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of virtually all of Japan's larger cities, killed between 241,000 and 900,000 people and were one of the main factors which influenced the national government to surrender.

I've developed this article with contributions from many other editors over the last year (most notably, User:Cla68, User:Binksternet and User:Jim Sweeney). It was peer reviewed last April, assessed as GA class in September and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in January. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited (including a pre-FAC copy edit from User:Dank over the last few days), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Search throughout for "with" + noun + "being" and look for ways to rephrase. (Garner's has good advice on this at "Absolute construction". Bottom line: that construction becomes less common in print every year, and it's clearer if you either use a semicolon, or state what the connection is between the two halves of the sentence.) The article flows nicely and covers a lot of relevant material. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've just run through the article and removed many instances of 'being' as they were unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Generally looks very thorough.
  • Lede "...and killed over 241,000 people" and later: "Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000." The table way down gives 9 different figures, of which this is the lowest, with 300,000 the next lowest. With such a large gap, and no discussion in the article as to why this lowest figure might be the most credible, I think the range should be conveyed in the lede. The infobox has "Estimates vary between 241,000 and 900,000 killed" but personally in the lede I'd say something like " Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000, but most are in the range 300-350,000." Something like that. Whether that should be in the 1st or 3rd para I'm not sure, but it just needs to be in one.
    • Done - I've noted that 333,000 killed and 473,000 wounded is the most commonly cited figure, though there are other estimates. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed to "at least 241,000 people" in the 1st line to better suggest the uncertainty. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para, much the longest, concentrates on where the attacks came from, and is probably too detailed, and rather congested. It lacks any overview sentence. Here and later throwing in some of the distances involved would help the reader's understanding. Much other stuff is not in the lead.
    • I've now changed the lead as suggested, and added the distances the bomber had to cover from China and the Mariana Islands. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Attack on Pearl Harbor" - capital A?
  • "Japanese Government" - capital G? Also some "Army"s.
    • I've dropped the capital G in 'government' (as this doesn't appear to have been its formal name), but the capital 'A' in Army seems fine to me, as this is what the organisation was called. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was believed that Soviet Union aircraft based in the country's far east posed the greatest threat" - "Soviet" is the adjective, and, though logic obviously dictates that "the country" is the SU, it rather trips the reader. Better:"... it was believed that Soviet aircraft based in the Russian Far East posed the greatest threat". - that should be linked anyway.
    • Done (and I've simplified this para for good measure) Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were embarked aboard the aircraft carrier USS Hornet which carried them from San Francisco to within range of Japan." All that is needed (unless you say what the range actually was) "is "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were carried from San Francisco to within range of Japan on the aircraft carrier USS Hornet." Does SF need a link?
    • Done. Given that all the Japanese locations mentioned in the article are linked, I think that linking SF is consistent. It's not essential though. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the single most effective strategic air attack of the Pacific War.[151]" with one source - maybe "has been described as..."
  • "the much greater vulnerability of Japanese cities to incendiary bombs" is mentioned right at the end, but it is never spelt out why Japanese housing & traditional buildings were so much more vulnerable to firebombing in particular - namely that they were largely built of wood and pretty tightly-packed. This should go in much earlier.
    • Good point: I've added some extra material on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through I thought the early sections lacked flow, then things improved apart from some very clogged listy sections just detailing raids.
    • I've had a go at improving the first sections (I'm presuming that you meant the material in the 'background' section at is seemed the most 'jumpy', but please correct me if you meant more than just this). I agree that the paragraphs listing the raids on minor cities towards the end of the article are a bit clunky, but I couldn't see any way around this: the alternatives used in histories of this part of the bombing campaign are to either very briefly pass over these raids or use a huge table (like the one at Strategic bombing during World War II#United States strategic bombing of Japan, but with extra columns for dates and the forces involved). Neither approach seemed satisfactory or in line with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I think that covering all the raids in this way provides a feel for the huge scale of these operations. That said, any suggestions for how to improve the presentation of this material would be much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there Allied policies to avoid major historic sites like Kyoto, which I think was never bombed? Were they trying to hit or to miss the Imperial Palace in Tokyo?
    • Yes, Kyoto and the Imperial Palace were off limits to the American bombers. I've added some material on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there are total figures for the numbers of Allied planes and aircrew or personnel involved.
    • I couldn't find any total figures for the scale of the Japanese and Allied forces (and I looked everywhere for them). Given the scale, duration and complexity of this campaign, it would be very difficult for anyone to calculate overall number of participants. I'll add in some more snapshot figures though. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added figures for the peak US bomber and Japanese fighter strengths. I don't think that these are suitable for the infobox, however, given that they varied a lot over time. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to some of your comments, and will work on the rest. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to anything significant in others' comments. I've reviewed the changes but not reread it, so I'm not sure how much flow has improved; I understand the problems here. Other comments above resolved. A fine detailed piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- I strongly suspect that I promised to review this when it got to FAC after I missed out on commenting when it was at MilHist A-Class Review, so here I am... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't think it's considered necessary anymore to link countries, e.g. India and China in the lead. Linking World War II is also a bit redundant when you're linking everything from Pacific War down...
  • The first American Volunteer Group (the "Flying Tigers") began operations as part of the Chinese Air Force in late 1941 using fighter aircraft -- we should be able to name the type of fighter; Curtiss P-40s weren't they?
  • In a similar vein, ...diverted elsewhere in Asia following the attack on Pearl Harbor begs the question where in Asia...
    • Only a few of the unit's aircraft reached Asia before the war broke out, and it didn't become operational - I've fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made it to Operation Matterhorn before stopping for the night -- looking forward to continuing tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming, belatedly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Japanese military began transferring fighter aircraft to the home islands from China and the Pacific in early 1944 in anticipation of B-29 raids -- Just curious (and pedantic, as you'd expect!) but does the source explicitly say the Japanese were expecting B-29 raids or just bomber raids in general? I ask because I wonder if the Japanese were aware of the B-29 before it entered service...
    • Yes, the Japanese spotted the arrival of B-29s and base construction in China and India, and I've added some material on this. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • XX Bomber Command lost 125 B-29s during all of its operations from bases in India and China, though only 29 were destroyed by Japanese forces -- I think that large a ratio of non-combat to combat losses needs some elucidation, either by progressively noting the mounting losses earlier in the section or explaining the big figure at the end, since it seems to pop out of nowhere (by all means point out if I missed something).
    • Good point. The losses were due to flying accidents; I've added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • LeMay also had most of the B-29s' defensive guns removed so they could carry more bombs -- Might be worth briefly elaborating on why fewer guns allows more bombs; since most of the B-29's guns were in remote-controlled turrets, I assume it was just the weight of the guns being saved, not gunners, or did the turrets go too?
    • Done. All the references talk about the 'guns being removed' or similar and don't go into greater detail (which would probably be excessive for this article anyway). I presume that the modifications weren't drastic as the aircraft needed to be re-armed again (eg, I suspect that the guns, ammunition and gunners were removed, but the turrets and fire control equipment remained in the aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The start of this firebombing campaign was delayed as XXI Bomber Command was used to attack airfields in southern Japan... -- I don't quite get what this is doing under the Destruction of Japan's main cities subsection when the previous subsection began The first firebombing attack in this campaign was carried out against Tokyo on the night of 9/10 March -- Why wasn't this delay mentioned earlier? It's as though the destruction of the main cities is a separate campaign...
    • To give a very long answer to a short question (though it might help explain why the article is structured the way it is): the historiography of XXI Bomber Command's operations consistently breaks them into a series of campaigns: 1) the (mainly) precision bombing effort under Hansell and LeMay's early raids 2) LeMay's initial major firebombing raids on Tokyo and other cities 3) an interlude where the B-29s mainly went after airfields 4) the sustained firebombing of the main cities 5) (to quote the relevant chapter title of the USAAF official history) "the all-out B-29 attack" where the bombers systematically destroyed smaller cities while mounting a smaller number of precision bombing and minelaying attacks 6) the atomic bombing raids and final attacks (not coincidentally, this is the structure used in the USAAF official history, which remains the main work on the strategic bombing campaign). This paragraph refers to stage 3). I've tweaked the wording at the start of this para to make it clearer though. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only limited attacks on Japanese cities were conducted while the Battle of Okinawa continued. A night precision bombing raid was flown against the Nakajima engine factory in Tokyo... -- I don't care too much about an occasional passive sentence but two in a row's a bit much... ;-)
  • Sixteen multi-city incendiary attacks were conducted by the end of the war (an average of two per week) covering 58 cities -- Not sure of the expression here, do I assume it means 16 attacks had been conducted by war's end?
  • You have a mix of caps and non-caps for "the task force"...
    • Now all caps (as it was a thing with a name which included 'Task Force'; I hope this is correct!) Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa -- more later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last round -- in addition to further copyediting, just a couple of relatively minor points...

  • Under Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, when you say ...aircraft being held in reserve to attack the Allied invasion force, I assume you're referring to the planned Allied invasion of Japan. If so, I think "...aircraft being held in reserve to repel the expected Allied invasion" or some such would work better.
    • Given that this is discussing the actions of US aircraft, I think that this is OK; the Allies were deadly serious about invading Japan and were making serious preparations for this at the time of the Japanese surrender. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I say, not a big deal, but just want to make sure my reasoning was clear -- it's not that the Allies weren't serious about the invasion, rather that when you plonk the term in like that it may appear that you're referring to an invasion that did happen. Also, in this sentence you're explaining things from the Japanese perspective (what they were doing with their aircraft) so it made sense to me to treat the invasion from their perspective too, i.e. they were anticipating it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, fair enough: I've added 'expected' to the sentence to make this clearer. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On this day B-29s dropped three million leaflets on Japanese cities, claiming that atomic bombs would be used to destroy all the country's military resources unless the Emperor ended the war. -- This was a bluff, wasn't it? If I remember the story, the US had few if any bombs in reserve when it made this threat -- if so, think it's a tidbit worth mentioning.
    • That's a good point; I've added a couple of sentences about this. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking as read the reference/image checks Nikki's made below, and I know that Nick's last FAC (Battle of Arawe) underwent a source spotcheck that uncovered little of concern. Based on my own review I'm happy with the prose, structure, and level of detail, so am ready to support -- well done producing this major article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your review and changes to the article Ian. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why only include one author for Coles 1951 and Tanaka 2009?
    • Fixed
  • FN 213: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you cite reprinted works using the original or reprint date
  • FN 243 and 248 could each refer to two bibliographic listings
  • Why is the Commons link in the References section?
  • In the Dear and Foot entry, why is "editors" included in the wikilink?
    • A quirk of the code. I can't see a way around this, so I've removed the Wikilink Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes
    • They all look OK to me - could you please point out the ones which need to be fixed? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought there were two instances, but now it's just Frank 2005. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that. I think that this is unavoidable though: the chapter title in the book includes quote marks, and the coding for the chapter section of Cite:book also adds them. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's an allowable to change the chapter title's quotes to single quotes for readability – see [2] for instance. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, and thanks for that advice Ed: fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, etc
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for journals/magazines
  • Hadley: why country here but county for other UK locations?
    • That's the result of a quirk of the automatic reference generator, I think (as well as me not spotting and fixing this, of course!). I've standardised to 'United Kingdom'. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg: source link appears to be broken
  • File:Tokyo_air_raid_memorial.JPG: does Japan have freedom of panorama that would allow this usage? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very good question. According to the guidance on Commons, it depends on whether it's considered an 'artistic work' (in which case it can't be used) or a building (in which case it's OK). The structure is a fairly solid memorial located in a public park which includes chambers inside of it accessible by a door, so it's in a grey zone. As it wasn't built as an art work and incorporates many features of a building, I think it's OK, but if someone wants to correct me that would be good (due disclosure: I took the photo, so I'm a) familiar with the characteristics and location of the memorial and b) probably a bit biased). I think that I've now responded to all your comments (albeit with a question to one of them). Thanks for taking the time to do such a careful check. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On further consideration, I've removed the photo: I think that it should be PD, but as its in a grey zone it's not suited for an FA. Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why are only the losses of the 20th Air Force mentioned in the Infobox?
    • That's a very good point; I'll add in the losses of the other USAAF units and Japanese air units. I've looked everywhere for the losses of the Allied naval units in raids against Japan but haven't been able to find them unfortunately (which makes me suspect that they may never have been tabulated). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to name the main participating air units, like 20th Air Force, and their commanders in the infobox?
    • Given that there were lots of commanders (for instance on the US side alone there were Wolfe, Hansell, LeMay, Halsey, Spruance and whoever commended the 7th and 13th Air Forces as well as Arnold not to mention the commander of the British Pacific Fleet) and the Japanese command structure was almost as as complex, I think that it would be unwieldy and unhelpful for readers. As an example of the complexity, there was no overall commander of the air campaign on either side, and both the Allies and Japanese significantly changed their command structures on several occasions during the campaign. I normally fill out the infobox, but unfortunately doing so here is impractical. I've identified the various leaders and units involved in the article where relevant. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, scratch the bit on the units; I just trialed adding them to the infobox, and they worked fine. I think that adding the commanders would be confusing though given that no-one had overall command on either side and there was so much turnover. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see the points Casus and Aftermath of the infobox filled but just realized that they are not included in the english version of the infobox, so forget about this.

Cheers --Bomzibar (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mention both, the IJAAF and the IJNAF quite early in the article and in the later chapter Japanese military response that they were both placed unter the command of the Air General Army. As this is quite special for the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces, maybe it should be mentioned that both japanese Air Forces were seperated in command and that the competition between Army and Navy often hampered the efforts for a joint command.
      • That's a good point; I've added some extra material on the problems the lack of coordination between the Army and Navy caused (the main problem in the defense of Japan seems to have been poor coordination and cooperation). Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the Commanders it would be possible to name the main commanders at a specific date, 1 August 1945 or somewhen else.
      • That's probably the best approach, but it's still problematic as there was no 'typical' date which can be selected given that the command structures changed so much. I really think that listing commanders would do more harm than good as it would confuse readers. I've identified all the key figures in the article, as well as the main changes to the Allied and Japanese command structures. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Bomzibar (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've started reading through, it will probably take me a while to finish, but it looks pretty good thus far. I made some small copyedits, feel free to revert. One small comment, I noticed some inconsistent comma use: "In July 1942 the commander of the American Volunteer Group" vs "In early 1942, forces allocated". Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Twelve of the 61 Superfortresses that reached the target area" I think you should write sixty one out here, per WP:NUMERAL. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed both. Thanks for the comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies to the nominator, but I don't believe that I will be able to finish my review. I've read from the beginning of the article to the end of the "Attacks from China" subsection--and everything I've read is clearly FA quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries Mark - thanks for having a look at the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I have taken the liberty of making a few spotchecks:

  • Article: The aircraft then continued to China and the Soviet Union, though several crashed in Japanese-held territory after running out of fuel.
  • Source: As their fuel gauges dropped, the Raiders knew they could not reach their designated airfields. One by one, they ditched at sea, bailed out, or crash-landed in China (one crew diverted to the Soviet Union)
  • Article: which was subsumed by the United States Army Air Forces, or USAAF, in February 1942
  • Source: The Army of the United States is reorganized to provide under the Chief of Staff a ground force, under a Commanding General, Army Ground Forces; an air force, under a Commanding General, Army Air Forces; and a service of supply command, under a Commanding General, Services of Supply; and such overseas departments, task forces, base commands, defense commands, commands in theaters of operations, and other commands as the Secretary of War may find to be necessary for the national security.
  • Article: This judgement stated that there had not been "unreasonable disparity" in how civilians, soldiers, and atomic bomb survivors were treated, and that the government had showed "no gross deviation from its discretionary right in not legislating for redress measures"
  • Source: In the ruling, Kurono said the government didn't violate the Constitution, stating that the court couldn't find any "unreasonable disparity" between its treatment of ordinary people and soldiers and atomic bomb survivors. (and) While acknowledging the long-term pain and hardships endured by the plaintiffs, Judge Yoshihisa Kurono said Wednesday the government shares no liability as there was "no gross deviation from its discretionary right in not legislating for redress measures."

No issues were found. Graham Colm (talk) 11:26, 7 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/Air_raids_on_Japan/archive1&oldid=486169299"