Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Attack on Sydney Harbour


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Attack on Sydney Harbour
After some heavy slogging on the part of several editors, a peer review, and a Good Article pass, I feel it is time to see if this article makes the grade for A-class. If not, what needs to be addressed? If so, what does it need for a run at Featured status? -- saberwyn 12:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, but just one question. The article states: "The floatplane was seriously damaged on landing and had to be scuttled, although both aircrew survived." I thought scuttling was a term that applied only to ships...? -- Hongooi 13:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The term was the one used in the texts, and if taken to mean "to deliberately sink something" is valid in its context. -- saberwyn 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait. This article needs a lot more work. Moriori 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What work does it need? -- saberwyn 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's confusing, for one. The first paragraph says five subs attacked Sydney (three B1s and two C1s) but the fourth paragraph says six subs attacked Sydney, (four B1s and two C1s). Also, I support JKBrooks85's comments below re readability. Needs a haircut. Moriori 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Six subs were assigned to the operation. I-28 was sunk a few days before it could begin its part in the operation, as detailed in the fifth paragraph. Suggestions on how to make this clearer would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's confusing. In fact, eight subs attacked Sydney, five conventional and three midget. I'll be back tomorrow to make a few changes which I think will help. Cheers. Moriori 02:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the introduction in an attempt to limit confusion. Have a look at it, please. -- saberwyn 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — In my opinion, there's not much from the Japanese POV. A few Japanese sources might help that problem. In addition, I'd suggest editing for readability. A lot of the sentences in the article have comma splices and some are written in passive voice. JKBrooks85 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will contact the Japanese taskforce and enquire for their assistance. -- saberwyn 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Didn't even think of that idea myself. JKBrooks85 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done a little bit of a copyedit, but due to my proximity to the text my eyes are probably the worst to be looking through for this. Assistance in highlighting errors in spelling, grammar, and readability would be appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support meets all criteria (though I should confess that I have contributed to the article). Great work Saberwyn! As a comment, as all the Japanese subs involved in the operation were lost before the end of the war, I suspect that there unfortunetly isn't all that much which can be said from the Japanese perspective, other than the obvious observation that the men who operated the midget subs were very brave. --Nick Dowling 08:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as in my opinion all the criterions are met. --Eurocopter tigre 18:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. In my opinion I think it meets all the criteria and that is a good article. Kyriakos 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks pretty good. Is there any way that the references could be put into two columns, instead of one long one? I've seen that style in other articles, and it helps break up that long list. JKBrooks85 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reflist template was set to 3 columns, I've set it back to 2. Can someone confirm that the list is in two columns, as it does not and has never displayed on my computer. -- saberwyn 21:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.