Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Operation Hailstone/1

Operation Hailstone

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Operation_Hailstone/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist Concerns about broadness not addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've recently read a translated version of this article, which is much better than the article here, and I've also heard some individuals said that this article is too problematic for GA. To prove it, I've just read the article once. As what I can see, the article meets most of the GA criteria, but not "the prose is clear and concise": the article is too brief that the content is unclear, or in other words, it is too consice. I am sorry to have a doubt on whether it meets all criteria of GA, but I also hope that there will be Wikipedians who will improve this article, so that the content will be both clear and consice, to meet all criteria. Thank you for your consideration. SænmōsàI will find a way or  make one. 08:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which language version did you find superior? Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconding this question. The article as it existed prior to GA was a copy/paste from a book series. I wouldn't be surprised if other Wikis have the same content copy/pasted in another language format. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's Chinese Wikipedia, and it is not just copying and translating English and Japanese; if zhwiki's one could not fulfill all GA criteia, I can sure that the article here also can't fulfill that. SænmōsàI will find a way or  make one. 08:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Or I should add some sentences to explain: the first 3 paragraphs should write more (esp. the very first one, as it is not so fruitful, compare with zhwiki's first 2 paragraphs). SænmōsàI will find a way or  make one. 08:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The structure of the "Attack" section appears incomplete. The strike lasted one and a half days, yet activities on second day Feb 18th is totally ignored. Also unmentioned is the experimental night raid conducted by USS Enterprise, the first of its kind. Compared to paragraphs about the surface action by Adm. Spruance, words depicting aerial attacks against Japanese shipping, which contributed to the vast majority of ships sunk in Truk, is disproportionately few and fragmentary, focusing on only two of the thirty merchant ships (The editor might have developed tunnel vision from relying too much on primary sources like action reports). Certainly there were more dramatic actions deserving a few words, such as those of light cruiser Naka or destroyer Oite. I would say the descriptive style of Attack on Pearl Harbor, a similar topic, is much richer in context.--Medalofdead (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)