Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)


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


 * Promoted -MBK004 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

I have recently started this article on the first of many raids on the Japanese home islands conducted by B-29 bombers and think that it may meet the A class criteria. I'm very happy with how the article has turned out, but despite several searches have been unable to find any public domain images of the raid beyond what's in the article at the moment. I am considering taking the article to FA level, and would appreciate any comments on how it could be improved. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- fine work, Nick, just a few fairly minor comments:
 * I presume we really mean United States' Joint Chiefs of Staff (plural not singular) -- in other words it wasn't just one of 'em...? ;-)
 * I've changed this to 'United States Joint Chiefs of Staff' as I don't think that a possessive was needed
 * Pre-FA cmt: prose is generally good IMO but I think you need to do another pass throughout and see where the odd comma mightn't help. For instance in the same (longish) sentence as above, In late 1943 the United States' Joint Chief of Staff approved a proposal to begin the strategic air campaign against the Japanese home islands and East Asia using B-29s based in India staging through airstrips in China there isn't one to be seen; you could probably insert after "In 1943" and again after "East Asia" to break things up a bit. The value of commas after dates is clear in By 15 June 83 Superfortresses -- at first glance it reads like an unspecified number of B29s doing something on 15 June 1983, not 83 B29s doing something on 15 June of an unspecified year...
 * Thanks for those suggestions - I'm planning to leave the text alone for a while and then run through it with an eye to reducing sentance length overall
 * Again pre-FA: something like Early warning of raids was provided by radar stations and network of lookout posts could become Radar stations and a network of lookout posts provided early warning of raids.
 * Done
 * Check US spelling throughout rather than UK, e.g. "defenses" not "defences". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Comments : Generally a very good article, IMO. I have a couple of comments, most are mainly just suggestions, though:
 * images are all appropriately licenced (no action required);
 * no dab links, all images have alt text (no action required);
 * article is, IMO, well written and logically structured; the references are broad; citations are consistent in style; and it is illustrated with appropriate images (no action required);
 * please check the external link to the Matterhorn Missions, as it times out on me;
 * It works for me and shows up as a working link in the linkchecker tool
 * I found one inconsistency in style for numbers greater than nine. In the Preparations/United States section: "twelve B-29 sorties between India..." as opposed to "98 B-29s". The MOS generally prefers numerals to be used for numbers greater than 9;
 * Thanks - fixed.
 * in the first paragraph of the Raid section, values like "two tons" and "500-pound" bombs could have convert added to them;
 * I'm not sure how to get the ton conversion to work, and I think that 500 pound bombs didn't have this exact weight.
 * in terms of the abbreviations, you have used "U.S.", but then "USAAF" (no separating dots). Is there a MOS reason for this? I've seen lots of other articles do this, too, so I'm assuming there's a reason for it, but to be honest I think for consistency it should either be "US" and "USAAF", or "U.S." and "U.S.A.A.F.". Thoughts? — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Manual of Style 'U.S.' is the preferred usage for the country when writing in American English, but longer acronyms shouldn't have the periods. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Seems inconsistent, but no dramas. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a bit odd. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - two minor points only:
 * Might a couple of columns be used for the notes? and
 * Should the 'the' in 'The Pentagon' be capitalized, seems odd thats all?

Good work IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2010 (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 discussion.