Talk:Singapore strategy/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, since I was thinking of writing this article, I may as well review it now you've saved me the trouble... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Technical review
- The following dab links need attention:
- Fighter
- Malaya
- William Benson
- William Leahy
- External links okay
- Images appear appropriately licensed but no alt text present (not an actual requirement but something to consider if taking the article further)
Content review
- Plans: ...for political reasons, the naval planners were overridden by the politicians and the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse were sent to Singapore -- Two things with this statement: 1) actual and thematic repetition re. "political" and "politicians" -- I think it's a given that politicians do things for political reasons; 2) if you're going to say it's political, reckon you need to extrapolate a bit -- how or why was it political, e.g. because it was popular and/or cheap, or the alternative was unpopular and/or expensive, or whatever.
- Criticism: ...he argued that if war was most likely to break out in the Pacific at a time when the United Kingdom was involved in a crisis in Europe that would prevent it from sending sufficient resources to Singapore -- This is a bit of a mouthful (though perhaps not beyond one sentence); can you double-check it's what you want to express because I think it can be interpreted more than one way as it stands.
- Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still not sure about it, I think "argued that if war" is confusing matters. Do you mean In this article he argued that war was most likely to break out in the Pacific at a time when Britain was involved in a crisis in Europe, which would prevent Britain from sending sufficient resources to Singapore? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- In retrospect: Many historians felt that the Singapore strategy was unrealistic all along... -- Can I just double-check that your cited source implies that "many historians" felt this?
- Hmmm...
| “ | It was not until the 1970s that Britain's preparations for a Far Eastern war were closely scrutinized, and by the early 1980s a consensus had emerged that the plans developed were inherently unsound. Scholars have not been content with condemning the politicians who reduced Britain's naval strength during the interwar period: they have also censured the naval profession as a whole and criticized virtually every aspect of its preparations for war with Japan. | ” |
Summary