Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

 * The article could probably be added to some additional categories. At the least "1945 in Japan".
 * It's already there! Category:1945 in Japan us a subcategory of Category:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. WP:CLN: An article should usually not be in both a category and its subcategory
 * Fair call. Anotherclown (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the works in the further reading section are missing place of publication.
 * ✅ added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Merton, Thomas (1962). Original Child Bomb: Points for meditation to be scratched on the walls of a cave. New Directions." is missing an oclc / isbn. Should also use title case
 * ✅ Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Goldstein, Donald; Dillon, Katherine V; Wenger, J Michael (1995). Rain of Ruin: a photographic history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. " needs title case, missing publisher, place of publication, isbn.
 * ✅ looks okay to me. Changed case to titlecase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can an issn be added here: "Moore, Mike (July/August 1995). "Troublesome Imagery". Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science) 54 (4): 73–74."?
 * ✅ Added
 * Presentation of isbns is inconsistent. Some use hyphens and some don't.
 * ✅ Reformatted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the works in the reference section use capitals, not sure if this is correct under the MOS. Seems inconsistent.
 * Will read over this over the next few days and provide a full review. Anotherclown (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review
Anotherclown (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals one minor error with reference consolidation:
 * Nagasaki (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: external links check reveals a few issues :
 * POW website Research Network Japan (info) [powresearch.jp] (403 forbidden)
 * Nagasaki memorial adds British POW as A-bomb victim (info) [japantimes.co.jp] (404 dead)
 * Two Dutch POWs join Nagasaki bomb victim list (info) [japantimes.co.jp] (404 dead)
 * Bombings Worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima (info) [fff.org] (404 dead)
 * Reviving JOSEON (info) [investkorea.org] (404 dead)
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alt text: Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: a few duplicate links:
 * Douglas MacArthur
 * B-29 Superfortress
 * Mariana Islands
 * Project Alberta x 2
 * General of the Army
 * George Marshall
 * Chief of Staff of the Army,
 * Secretary of War
 * Henry L. Stimson
 * Brigadier General
 * Thomas Farrell
 * Colonel
 * Paul Tibbets x 2
 * Curtis Lemay x 2
 * Field Marshal
 * Tinian
 * Major x 2
 * Little Boy"
 * gun-type fission weapon
 * uranium-235
 * German atomic bomb project
 * Potsdam Declaration
 * Nagasaki
 * Bockscar
 * Commander x 2
 * Frederick Ashworth
 * The Great Artiste
 * Enola Gay
 * Operation Downfall
 * kokutai
 * Hiroshima
 * William L. Laurence
 * Little Boy
 * Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission
 * POWs
 * Yi Wu
 * Okinawa
 * prisoners of war
 * Korechika Anami
 * Hirohito
 * Harry S. Truman
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Criteria
The lead now has 5 paras, per WP:LEAD it shouldn't be more than 4 paras. Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * wording seems a little off here: "Debate regarding how much influence on the surrender of Japan", perhaps consider: "Debate regarding influence on the surrender of Japan"
 * ✅ Following other bombing articles, just put in "Allied victory". Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This might be unclear to reader who don't know what Little Boy was (at least until the read the article or click on the link): "American airmen dropped Little Boy" (in the lead). Suggest something like: "American airmen dropped the Little Boy atomic bomb..." or something like that.
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first couple of sentences don't quite seem to hit the right tone to me: "In 1945, the Pacific War between the Empire of Japan and the Allies of World War II had entered its fourth year. World War II was not winding down. Instead, the fighting was being prosecuted with ever-increasing fury." Could they be made more encyclopedic?
 * ✅ Deleted the sentence. The editor was trying to counter the misconception that some people have that it was the early years of WWII that were the expensive one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A little redundant: "In all, there were 2.3 million Japanese Army troops prepared to defend the Japanese home islands...", consider instead: "In all, there were 2.3 million Japanese Army troops prepared to defend the home islands..." (suggestion only)
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * terminology here: "...another 4 million Army and Navy employees...", employees seems a little odd, consider "personnel" instead.
 * ✅ Dropped that clause. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * typo: "...decided that low-level incendiary raids against Japanese cities was the only way...", I think it should be "were", i.e. "decided that low-level incendiary raids against Japanese cities were the only way..."
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also a little redundant: "In general, the Japanese regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the Japanese government.", perhaps just "In general, the Japanese regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the government." (suggestion only)
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Redundant: "...US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and they also decided against a special leaflet warning..." → "...US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and also decided against a special leaflet warning..."
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Various history books...", perhaps instead: "Various sources..." (suggestion only)
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a missing word here: "The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters...", should it be "The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at the headquarters..."?
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Missing word here? "On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 were in Nagasaki...", perhaps: "On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 people were in Nagasaki..." (or something similar)
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Should italics be used here for the aircraft name: "In fact, Victor 89 was "The Great Artiste". (for consistency)
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * typo here: "... preventing massive casualties on both sides in the Operation Downfall." consider instead "... preventing massive casualties on both sides during Operation Downfall."
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Missing word here I think: "Among the people who oppose the bombings have been many US military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, argue that it was simply...", consider: "Among the people who oppose the bombings have been many US military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, who argue that it was simply..."
 * ✅ Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Trimmed to four paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A few of the references lack place of publishing. Anotherclown (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR.
 * Minor formatting issue with a couple of refs - should have caps replaced with title case per MOS:ALLCAPS
 * RADIATION DOSE RECONSTRUCTION U.S. OCCUPATION FORCES IN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, JAPAN, 1945–1946 (DNA 5512F)" (PDF). Archived from the original on 24 June 2006. Retrieved 9 June 2006.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI BOMBING Facts about the Atomic Bomb:". Hiroshimacommittee.org. Retrieved 2013-08-11.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger Angell, From the Archives, "HERSEY AND HISTORY", The New Yorker, July 31, 1995, p. 66.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jon Michaub, "EIGHTY-FIVE FROM THE ARCHIVE: JOHN HERSEY" The New Yorker, June 8, 2010, np.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Some inconsistency in the presentation of "Time magazine" in the references, some use caps others don't.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs title case
 * Burchett, Wilfred (2004). "The atomic plague". In Pilger, John. Tell me No Lies. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. pp. 10–25. ISBN 0-224-06288-3. OCLC 61395938.
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * done now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

On further review in the lead you have "The bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan's adopting Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding the nation from nuclear armament." I don't see this mentioned in the body of the text. Could it be added to the text with a reference? Also I wonder if the article needs an "effects" section? Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * Level of coverage seems appropriate to me.
 * Removed. I don't see it in the text either, and I'd like to see a source that ties the two together. The Three Non-Nuclear Principles date to 1967, when there was a debate over basing Honest John in Japan. Japan only signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1976. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues that I could see.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * I've got to go out now - so will do an image check this evening when I get back from work.
 * Images look ok to me. All seem to be PD / licenced and information seems acceptable.
 * Captions look fine. Anotherclown (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes look fine - passing now. A depressing article to be sure, but an important one. Anotherclown (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)