Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Surrender of Japan/archive1

Surrender of Japan
user:Wwoods wrote most of this, with Taku and myself making some minor tweaks. I think it's a wonderfully well-written article. &rarr;Raul654 23:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Object.
 * The image Image:Hiro2.jpg has no source or copyright information.
 * Some other minor points: The intro says the day is called "Shusen-kinenbi" in Japan. What does that mean in English?  Also, IIRC, the last military action of the US against Japan was a thousand-aircraft bombing raid after the decision to surrender was made, but before the Emperor made his broadcast.  I see no mention of this in the article.
 * --Carnildo 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, I could be wrong, but thousand-bomber raids were confined to the European theatre of operations. The pacific saw smaller raids of B-29s flying much longer distances. You might be thinking of the Tokyo firebombing (consisting of 330 bombers on March 9-10, 1945) &rarr;Raul654 00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I found the reference I was looking for. It was a raid targeting eight cities, carried out by 800 bombers and 200 fighters. I've added it to the article. --Carnildo 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, from a preliminary scan (1) no cats (2) ex link not not descriptive (or realted? It's a blog) (3) no ex or wikisource links to the source documents which are heavily quoted from (4) There should be a summary section at the end to better lead into Occupied Japan putting the surrender in context with what followed, main link should probably also be made more obvious for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (5) Are all quotes in MoS sytle- the indentation seems to switch around, as do the quotation marks.--nixie 02:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object – seems more like an anthology of quotes rather than brilliant prose. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object – too many quotations, and not enough prose between them. Potsdam Declaration, for example. Decide which quotes are unnecessary and reword them as general statements. KingTT 05:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)