Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Akutan Zero


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 04:04, 27 December 2008.

Akutan Zero

 * Nominator(s): User:Raul654

This is a new article I started this week. People knowledgable about WWII may have heard of this, but a lot of the details remain obscure. I had a lot of fun writing this one :) Raul654 (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting and enjoyable read; I have made a couple of changes saying what continent places are in, but otherwise nothing to add. The 3 pics in "recovery" leave a 2" white gap at the head of the next section for me, and the cemetery pic goes well into the notes. I would move that up to the top of the section, & maybe the one of the plane being flown down down into a lower section. When something has to go in picture placement, being right next to the relevant text should be the first thing overboard, I and most professional picture editors feel.  Interesting to note that the frequency of referencing is much lower than for most nominations here (this is not a criticism). Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS Is "thusly" encyclopedic US English? I'm never allowed to get away with "whilst". Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Picture points now dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: An interesting article. I don't know anything about the subject, and found it very informative. I do have a few issues, however:
 * General point re citations: Some paragraphs appear somewhat lightly cited, e.g. first paragraph of the first main section, and other similar cases. In particular the Thach Weave tactic paragraph in the Consequences section doesn't have a citation at all.
 * The Thatch weave is a well-known topic (at least among people familiar with WWII). Nonetheless, I've added an attribution for the paragraph. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotations are cited, but generally not attributed in the text. For example, the three quotations in the second para of the first section are all cited to Reardon, but we don't know if he was giving his own opinion or reporting someone else's.
 * Any time I quote someone and cite a ref, the author of the ref is the author of the quote, unless I explicitly attribute someone else. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But how does this approach square with WP:MOS (Attribution paragraph)? Reardon is not the subject of the article or the section. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the sudden adoption of bullet-point format?
 * Lists (that is, of the captured fighters available to the Americans) should use bullets. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since all of the items in the list have significant text, then WP:MOS (first line) should apply. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs. - that section does not read easily as a non-list. It's an enumeration of the three aircraft previously captured by Americans. As an enumeration, it's inherently better suited to a list with bullets. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. The paragraph looks and reads fine as straight prose, with the simple addition of "Finally," or some such before the sentence beginning "In China...". I've tried it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this is an improvement. I'll fix it if other people here comment that your way is better. Raul654 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Typo in third line of third para of this section: "the rejected as" - I've fixed it as "they"
 * "Koga's final mission" sounds a bit melodramatic for a section heading ("Custer's last stand") Perhaps just "Final mission" would be more neutral?
 * I see nothing wrong with calling it Koga's final mission. "Final mission" is cryptic. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Starting a paragraph with "Note that..." introduces a direct editorial voice which is not impersonal or neutral. The sentence reads perfectly well without being prefaced in this way, and I suggest the two words are deleted.
 * Good point - done. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is saying: "It seems likely..." etc., and is the last part of the sentence relevant to this particular article?
 * Per my above response to your above comment regarding quotations, the author of the ref quote (Rearden) is the one making the comment. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the "Crash" section you refer to "Koga's wingman". He has previously been named, so why not now?
 * I refer to Koga's wingmen, not wingman. He had two of them, both previously named in the text. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Normal usage is for "Christian burial" to be capitalized.
 * Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "stymied their efforts" is surely colloquial speech?
 * I do not believe so. Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not very encyclopedic, but no matter. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are picking up on this. Stymied is a proper english word. It is neither colloquial nor slang. According to Merriam Webster, it means " to present an obstacle to; stand in the way of", which is exactly how it is used in this article. Googlar scholar, which indexes academic paper, has 60 hits for that phrase. Raul654 (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK you win - I only raised it as a "perhaps",  Brianboulton (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Reference to the Japanese "meatball" needs explaining - is it the aircraft insignia, or what?
 * "Meatball" was/is the common term for the red circle (the battle insignia) on Japanese combat aircraft Raul654 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - according to some googling, the proper Japanese term is Hinomaru Raul654 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a common enough term to be unexplained or unlinked, however. Not many people will know what it means. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten that part to call it a hinomaru, with a link to the term and an description of what the hinomaru is. Raul654 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Consequences section there's a long sentence that could do with splitting (about Reardon and the Japanese businessman). In any event I suggest that the comma after "1947" be deleted.
 * Done. Raul654 (talk)
 * Final image - a path in a cemetery where Koga may be buried? Hmmm...not sure how relevant this is.
 * At the risk of going into nuance here that I wanted to avoid in the article -- Koga was exhumed in 1947, but the team doing the exhumation was unaware of his identity and marked his body as unidentified. His remains were interred in Adak in a grave next to someone who was identified (Shindo Shigeyoshi). The Japanese excavated the Adak cemetery in 1953 and took 236 bodies back to Japan. Shigeyoshi was one of 13 bodies identified; the other 223 were buried in Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery. It is probable that Koga was one of the 223 unidentified ones. So yes, "likely", "probably" etc are the correct words to use. Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't comment on accuracy as I have no knowledge, and don't know the sources, but they look solid enough. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * You need last access dates on your web sources.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.aviation-history.com/
 * http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/WarPrizes.htm
 * http://www.warbirdforum.com/
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aviation-history.com is listed as one of McGraw-Hill's 500 best aviation websites. I think that we can consider it reliable. The other two sites were used for supporting information only (not referencing) to at others' suggestions I've kicked them into an external links section. Raul654 (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction - one of the two warbirdforum.com articles remains. It's identical to one on j-aircraft.com as well. The author of the article is Richard L. Dunn. Some googling turned up this (bolding mine) - Richard L. Dunn is currently an independent consultant and Senior Fellow at the University of Maryland. He conducts research and provides advice on business strategies to effectively develop and employ technologies in the military and civil sectors. Mr. Dunn retired from Federal service where he served as the first General Counsel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and was awarded the Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive. He also served at NASA Headquarters and was on active duty as a Judge Advocate in the USAF for ten years. At DARPA, Mr. Dunn pioneered contracting using “other transactions” to increase the effectiveness of R&D and prototyping efforts. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of the Government Contractor. He has written extensively both in the area of government contracts and military history. Mr. Dunn is a graduate of the University of New Hampshire (cum laude), and has law degrees from the University of Maryland and George Washington University (Highest Honors). Mr. Dunn and his wife, Karen, reside in Edgewater, Maryland. . Therefore, I think the source is reliable. Raul654 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul, you could just remove j-aircrart and warbird cites I think - isn't that triple cited? — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not there to reference any particular facts, but to help and inform the reader. For that reason, I'm hesitant to delete them. However, I've converted them into external links. Raul654 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've struck the last two, and left aviation-history out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Still need last access dates on the websites. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * NVO has put in the website retrieve dates. Raul654 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Another Zero, piloted by Maeda Yoshimitsu, crashed near Cape Rodney, New Guinea. The team sent to recover the plane erred when they chopped off the wings, severing the wing spars and rendering the hulk unflyable."
 * Comment - doesn't this need a citation? (towards the end of the "The Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighter" section) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  05:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was cited at the end of the proceeding paragraph following the colon. I've doubled up on the citation to make this more obvious. Raul654 (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: All images appear to be fine. However, I am unsure about the gallery layout in the middle of the article. I have never seen that before. It's not particularly aesthetic on my browser. Are there other layout options that utilize the necessary image components and don't leave such large gaps in text? --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jappalang went through, removing some images and re-arranging others. The images should be fine now. Raul654 (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think this is grounds to oppose, but I find the lead kind of weak, the prose choppy and I feel that the article can be brought up to a much more professional standard. Then again, it might just be that there aren't really enough sources to bring it up to those "standards", or not enough information.  But, when I first read it I felt that it met the standards of a B-class article, not a FA-class article.  Also, I agree with Moni3, I don't like the gallery.  Images should be integrated into the article as visual aides with relevant text.  A current example is AMX-30, which I'm currently expanding in an attempt to bring it up to FA-standards, where I removed the gallery as I integrate the images into the rest of the text (as it's written). JonCatalán(Talk) 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the article, it seems that the gallery does make that section of the article look a bit poorly organized. I saw it without the template, and the article's organization seemed a lot better.  Is there any way to integrate those images like the other images?  Apart from that, is there any way to expand the lead?  If so, I'd be happy to support. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is is O.K. to take a book quote, not from the book itself, but from a blog site hosted by http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/aboutaf.tmpl? What makes http://www.angelfire.com/wa/wathies/ reliable as a source for the book quote used in the article?  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 23:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The website, though hardly professional, is from Bill Thies, the guy who discovered the Akutan Zero. (Just look at the name and the fact that it's written in the first person) Raul654 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The actual quotes from the Zero! book are set forth on the article talk page:
 * Even as we reeled from the debacle of Midway, another event occurred far to the north which, although lacking the drama of open conflict, was no less serious.
 * and
 * We felt strongly that the unnoticed capture of the airplane, assisting the enemy so greatly in producing a fighter plane specifically to overcome the Zero's advantages, did much to hasten our final defeat.
 * Mr. Rearden's 1997 article in American Heritage's Invention and Technology Magazine combines excerpts of both:
 * Okumiya has written that the Allies’ acquisition of Koga’s Zero was “no less serious” than the Japanese defeat at Midway and “did much to hasten our final defeat.”
 * Note the correct placement of the quotation marks.
 * The cited website however renders this amalgamation of two separate quotes as one:
 * "the acquisition of that Zero [was] no less serious than the Japanese defeat at the Battle of Midway."
 * Mr. Theis's quote is not verbatim, but a partially-paraphased combination of two separate quotes appearing on separate pages of the original source. While it accurately conveys the meaning, it is not an exact quote.  Kablammo (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great example of why third-party sources are not reliable to source quotes! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the lead section to use the sourcing provided by Kablammo, and moved Theis's website to an external link. Also, earlier today someone added a which I have sourced. Raul654 (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Other than the list vs prose issue for the other Zeroes (which I don't intend to change unless others think it should be; see above), I don't believe there are any outstanding issues. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also the question of your interpretation of the attribution paragraph in WP:MOS Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The three items really do not look like a list and it seems almost prosified. I have to agree with Brianbouton. I am also concerned about http://www.aviation-history.com. If the site had some public contact information (phone number or address), then some kind of evaluation could be made. But there is none and only a web form exists. A website under the control of an anonymous owner does not strike me as reliable. I would second Ealdgyth's question. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've prosified the list. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Japanese historian Masatake Okumiya noted that 'the acquisition of that Zero 'was no less serious' than the Japanese defeat at the Battle of Midway, and that it 'did much to hasten [Japan's] final defeat'.[4]"
 * Comments This must be typos in wording and quote marks (from the lede):
 * Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I question the wikilink to Selective memory loss in the quote: "It also seems likely that in his interview, Shikada employed selective memory in not mentioning shooting down Michell's PBY and then machine gunning the crew on the water." The quote reads as if "selective memory" is being used  in the sense of a person's tendency to remember what they want to remember, and not a memory loss due to "a rare side effect of head injuries" as the wikilinked article states.
 * Selective memory was a redirect to selective memory loss. I've changed selective memory so that it now redirects to Lacunar amnesia, which is a more accurate description of what the author intended. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"n 1940, Claire Lee Chennault, leader of the Flying Tigers, sent a report on the Zero's performance to the United States Department of War. 'Aeronautical experts who studied the reports of the performance of the new Japanese 'mystery fighter' snorted in disbelief. When they read the secret reports of speed, maneuverability, firepower, and range, they rejected as 'arrant nonsense' the claims that the Japanese had become a grim air threat. Their conclusion was that such a fighter was literally an aerodynamic impossibility.'[10] Early in the war, the Zero outclassed any Allied fighter it encountered. According to American flying ace William N. Leonard, 'In these early encounters and on our own we were learning the folly of dogfighting with [the Zero].'[11]" First, the entire paragraph is mostly quotations. Second, the longest quotation is a very subjective, almost novelistic description (eg "snorted in disbelief") and, although implicitly attributed to Claire Lee Chennault, it does not specifically state that this was his personal view (if that is what it is, as I am not sure whose view it is). Further, the way all the quotes are buried in the paragraph, it is difficult to distinguish what is quoted and what is not, from my point of view. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs some copy editing of repeat wording, eg. "The fatal shot severed the return oil line, causing Koga's plane to lose oil. Loss of oil will ultimately cause an engine to seize, forcing the plane to return to earth, possibly in a crash. Oil pressure in Koga's plane dropped, causing him to reduce speed to prevent the engine from seizing for as long as possible." causing > cause > causing. It would be better to vary the wording.
 * I've scrubbed this section down to "The fatal shot severed the return oil line, and the plane immediately began trailing oil. Koga reduced speed to prevent the plane's engine from seizing for as long as possible". Its previous incarnation was unnecessarily wordy. Raul654 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many quotes in the entire article, as if nothing is trusted to be reworded by the article writer. In addition to all the quotes interwoven in the text, there are three large blockquotes in this rather short article. I particularly object to this paragraph:
 * You misinterpret the paragraph in question. Chennault was not doing the snorting -- he was the one whose report was snorted at. I've rewritten it, sans the quotation, to make this more clear. Raul654 (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are now 3 block quotes in the article - one is a quote from the test pilot who flew it (a primary historical source) in the flight testing section; the second is a quote from a historian about the historiography of the plane in a section describing its historiography. I don't think either of these should be removed or paraphrased because I think that would be detrimental to the article. The third block quote is from Rearden about Koga's actions in trying to land the plane. This could be paraphrased. Raul654 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Happy Holidays 15:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Comments - Excellent work overall. Some minor comments:
 * To achieve this, however, Japanese engineers traded off armor protection. The Zero had no armor and no self-sealing fuel tanks. - The use of "armor" twice is slightly redundant.
 * During the war, the Japanese manufactured roughly 10,500 Zeros. - Can a source be found for this?
 * From these wrecks, the Allies learned that the Zero lacked armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but little else about its capabilities. - Self-sealing fuel tanks is already linked earlier in the article.
 * However, the bad conditions and long delivery time to the United States meant that Neumann's Zero did not reach the United States for testing until after the recovery of the Akutan Zero. &rarr; "However, the bad conditions and long delivery time to the United States prevented Neumann's Zero from reaching United States for testing until after the recovery of the Akutan Zero."
 * It is unknown who fired the shots that damaged Koga's plane. Numerous individuals have claimed credit for it. - These sentences could probably be merged.
 * Physical inspection of the plane showed it was hit with small arms fire – .50 caliber bullet holes and smaller, from both above and below. - "Showed" &rarr; "revealed".
 * Oil pressure in Koga's plane dropped, causing him to reduce speed to prevent the engine from seizing for as long as possible. - "Causing" &rarr; "prompting". Also, is there a source for this sentence?
 * The Zero was fit to fly again on September 20. - I guess it's not terribly controversial info, but could you source this?
 * Avoid links within proper quotes whenever possible.
 * I've implemented all of the above except the one about the individual who shot down the plane. I don't see a good way to merge those sentences. Do you have a suggestion? Raul654 (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about, It is unknown who fired the shots that damaged Koga's plane, although numerous individuals have claimed credit for it.? –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Raul654 (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support It meets FA criteria. However some ideas for unneccessary but interesting expansion would be to include more info on what Japanese thought of both Koga (did Japanese remember him honorably or not, I think they had a thing about suicide instead of capture or defeat) and US capture of the plane (which you have already included with the general's quote). Most War articles that include more of what each side were thinking and doing make interesting reading.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's not really a whole lot more to say about the Japanese reaction. To the Japanese, Koga's crash and death were not all that noteworthy at the time (such things are commonplace during a war). I believe the subsequent capture of his airplane was unknown to the Japanese until after the war (the information gleaned from the capture was classified until 1956). In retrospect, Japanese historians credit the capture as being extremely important, but the extent of that (versus other factors like the rapidly decreasing skill of Japanese pilots, increasing skill of allied pilots, and improved performance of allied planes) is debated. Raul654 (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


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