Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)/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 Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010.

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article on the first bombing raid to be conducted by land-based bombers against Japan during World War II passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review at the end of May and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment What is the purpose of the disambiguating "(June 1944)" in the title? I could find no other article whose name is "Bombing of Yawata". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The city was also struck by notable raids in August 1944 and August 1945 (both of which were larger than the June 1944 raid). As this article covers only the first raid in any detail, it's not about the 'Bombing of Yawata' so the disambiguation seems necessary to prevent confusion. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just converted Bombing of Yawata into a stub on the bombing of the city. Given that the city and its industrial facilities were among the most important targets for the USAAF and the raids receive detailed coverage in the USAAF's official history and other works (some sources state that smoke from the August 1945 raid led to Nagasaki being targeted for the second atomic bomb instead of the nearby city of Kokura) there is scope for either a detailed article on the attacks on the city or good-quality articles on each of the three main raids. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: all sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Preliminary Comments:


 * I share Dabomb's concern about the title of the article. What other FAs use this style of naming convention?
 * Please see my response above. Please see Bombing of Hamburg in World War II for an example of an article which covers multiple raids on a city and Bombing of Berlin in World War II and Battle of Berlin (air) for an example of articles in which a sub-article has been created for a notable series of raids on the city.


 * Opening sentence: "The Bombing of Yawata on the night of 15/16 June 1944 ..." MOS indicates this is not a valid use for the solidus.
 * Manual of Style states that it is and actually uses "the bombing raids of the night of 30/31 May 1942" as the example of acceptable usage in this context


 * The Lede is only 8 sentences long. Please expand the lead so that it covers the entire article.
 * Could you please identify what isn't covered in the lede which should be included? Given that the article isn't very long I'd rather not expand the lede for the sake of simply making it longer.


 * "The Japanese Government"
 * No caps on government here.


 * Done


 * There are some standardization issues in this article. In the lede, the acronym USAAF is explained to readers, and the explanation doesn't appear in the text itself. However, World War II is wikilinked in both the lead and the body of the text. It should be one way or the other.
 * Done - I've removed the second link to World War II and expanded USAAF in the body of the article


 * "its combat groups had a higher level of experience than most newly deployed USAAF bomber units"
 * Awkward. I suggest "were more experienced..."


 * Done


 * "India to attack targets in Bangkok, Thailand as a 'dress rehearsal'"
 * Missing comma after Thailand.


 * Done


 * "would be deployed as bombers in Europe but only be used as armed transports"
 * would be deployed [...] would only be used


 * Repeating the same word twice in the same sentence seems a bit awkward and unnecessary


 * "another bomber crashed with the loss of its entire crew."
 * Awkward.


 * Tweaked - what do you think?


 * "two tons of 500-pound bombs"
 * No conversion here? And no non-breaking spaces?


 * The bombs were called "500-pound bombs" but I don't think they actually weighted 500 pounds so converting it wouldn't be appropriate. I've converted tons (as the source was a US book I've assumed that they were short tons). I've just added non-breaking spaces throughout the article.


 * "The 59th Air Regiment was not scrambled as its pilots had not worked with those of the 4th Air Regiment"
 * This probably needs better explanation. I don't know what 'scrambled' means here.


 * I've linked 'scrambled' to Scrambling (military) - its the standard term for dispatching fighter aircraft from their base in response to an attack


 * "the attack on the city lasted for almost two hours"
 * "For" can be jettisoned here.


 * Done


 * Sources: Only 12 sources are cited in the article. This seems pretty low... Firsfron of Ronchester  20:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The literature on the US bombing raids on Japan is surprisingly limited. I've used all the few major sources on this raid, including the USAAF official history (which provides by far the most detail) and a comprehensive history of the campaign published this year (which is advertised as being the first book to tell the full story of all USAAF and naval air attacks on Japan - from my research this is accurate). I've also tracked down and used the obscure Japanese history of their efforts to counter the raids and, as far as I can tell, the only recent book to focus on this topic to ensure that the Japanese side of things is adequate covered. I also consulted all the other sources I could get my hands on in two major university libraries (including one which specialises in military history) and the internet, but they provided few extra details. Can you identify any additional sources which should be consulted? Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick-D-- I will go over this in more detail soon and will support. There are a few pages on the raid in   In addition to what you have already covered, there is an interesting account of the downing and destruction of Captain Robert Root's plane, and the glowing news reports in the US on the bombing, at odds with the actual results.  I can scan and send you these pages if you want; I have e-mail enabled (but ping me as I don't check it regularly).  Kablammo (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that - I think that I should be able to get my hands on a copy of that book. Nick-D (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've borrowed the book and added some material from it. It's very heavily based on the USAAF official history though. While I was at the library I also double-checked the relevant volumes of the Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific War) and they contained only brief mentions of this operation which didn't add anything to the material already in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Well-written and researched; covers the subject, and of an appropriate length and level of detail.  All criteria met.  Kablammo (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * Git rid of the quotes around the codenames for Japanese aircraft.
 * I've removed these Allied reporting names - the Japanese manufacturers's designations appear to be the common name for aircraft in more recent works.
 * I think that removing the codenames altogether might be excessive considering that many older works use the codenames. I'd suggest that the Japanese short designation be used along with the Allied codename together once and then you can go with just one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK done. I've used the Japanese names in the article's text and added a footnote with the Allied names. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Capitalize Air Regiments when discussing specific regiments.
 * Done
 * Brigadier General Saunders was the commander of the 58th BW, not its head. Play around with the sentence order to alleviate commanded commander infelicities.
 * Done
 * Link "strafed".
 * Done
 * Dunno if you want to add it, but says that 107 tons of bombs were dropped during the raid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added - thanks a lot for the reference and your comments Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Support: I supported this article for A class and believe it is up to FA standard, I have the following minor comments:
 * images are appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * well written, comprehensive, well researched/referenced, neutral and stable (no action required);
 * I didn't find any typos or spelling errors when I read through it (no action required);
 * I found the article interesting and informative (no action required);
 * could OCLC numbers be added to the References that don't have ISBNs (the two Cate refs)?
 * Done
 * in the Japanese subsection of Preparations, I think "China-India border" should have an endash per DASH;
 * Done
 * in the raid section you have "16:16 local time" and then later "00:38 (local time)". Are the brackets here necessary?
 * Not at all - changed
 * could an accessdate be added to Citation # 1?
 * Done - and well spotted
 * the template ribbon at the bottom of the article might look better collapsed (suggestion only, I don't think it is a requirement).
 * I agree that would be an improvement, but I'm not sure how to do this
 * Done. I did |this to the article, and |this to the template. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All my comments have been addressed, so I have added my support above. Great work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support Some minor suggestions for further improvement (mainly prose tweaks):
 * "The Superfortress was the largest combat aircraft of World War II and boasted a large bomb load, long range and powerful defensive armament." Repetition of 'large'; also, largest in what way?
 * I've fixed the repetition, but the source just says it was the largest - and includes a table showing that it weighted almost twice as much as any of the variants of the B-17
 * "...problems with the design were worked through." Comes over as slightly colloquial - "solved" or "addressed" perhaps?
 * Done
 * "...staging through airstrips in China." An explanation or link for 'staging' might be useful
 * Clarified
 * "The goals of this operation were to relieve pressure on Chinese forces which were being attacked by the Japanese and support the invasion of Saipan." Is a word missing here ("The goals of this operation were to relieve pressure on Chinese forces which were being attacked by the Japanese and to support the invasion of Saipan.")
 * That works better
 * It was decided to conduct the raid at night with each B-29 bombing individually as Yawata was too far from the forward air bases in China for a formation flight to be feasible." Why? I assume it's because they couldn't carry the fuel necessary for the hanging around while aircraft formed up, but can this be supported by a cite? If not, no worries :)
 * Yes, that's correct - and clarified to the extent supported by the source
 * "Only 15 of the American aircraft were able to aim their bombs visually as the city was blacked out and obscured by smoke or haze and the other 32 bombed by radar." Rather breathless - maybe "Only 15 of the American aircraft were able to aim their bombs visually as the city was blacked out and obscured by smoke or haze, so the other 32 bombed by radar."?
 * Tweaked - what do you think?
 * "During this period the bombers were highly vulnerable to Japanese retaliatory raids, but none eventuated." Would 'materialised' perhaps be better than 'eventuated'?
 * I think that the current wording works better
 * I recall some controversy about British efforts in Burma being disrupted by the diversion of transport aircraft from supporting Slim's ground forces to ferrying supplies over 'the hump' into China. I haven't got my refs handy at the moment, but was that because of the preparation for this raid? If so, it might be an interesting addition (I'll have a look at my books later). EyeSerene talk 13:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to have applied to this particular raid - the fuel and airlift required was taken from the 14th Air Force's allocations. It did become a problem later (possibly after B-29s ceased to be used to haul fuel supplies). Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering the above points, all of which have been addressed satisfactorily (with the possible exception of 'eventuated' which comes across as a bit 'management-speak' to me, but that might be my Br-E perspective!). It's an interesting and well-researched article. Nice job; changed to support. EyeSerene talk 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: Nice little article Nick, just a few comments from myself.
 * Unless I'm mistaken, Yawata is mentioned quite a few times before we actually learn where it specifically is, and that is only by a loose association ("In addition, Yawata and northern Kyūshū were defended by anti-aircraft artillery units..."). Think it would be good to clarify where some of the places described are in Japan, without needing to follow the link to it.
 * Great point! Fixed.
 * Is there a ref for the line "This was the single most important facility in Japan's steel industry as it produced 24 percent of the country's total output of rolled steel." The following ref seems to be about the secondary target, so it isn't clear.
 * Yes, page 99 of Cate (the current footnote 19) is the citation for both this and the information on the raid's secondary target. Do you think that this needs a specific citation? (which is easily done)
 * I would strongly recommend using the Operation template infobox instead of the battle template. There were few interceptions, so this wasn't a clear air battle in which 24 fighters fought 75 bombers. More it was an operation with various results that can be summmarised in the box's Outcome section.
 * I don't think that I agree with that - while both forces were unable to do much damage to the other, it did involve a battle. I just experimented with the operation template, and it didn't really allow a summary of the article (for instance, it was planned by a number of American and Japanese headquarters and there were losses and significant forces involved on both sides) so I'd rather not use it.
 * Otherwise, looks good! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.