Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Singapore strategy


 * 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.


 * Closing as consensus to promote, Woody (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Singapore strategy

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... Failed an earlier A-class review but now expanded and renominated. I hope that this article will help people understand the topic and not get more confused. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - thanks for addressing my concerns. Kirk (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I supported the article in the last ACR and believe that it has been improved since then. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)\\

Comment
 * Does anyone know why the portal tag does not work properly? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Hawkeye, what is the issue you are having with them? When I view the article, they seem okay, unless I've missed something. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are five portals, but no matter how you arrange them, the fourth portal is always missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. User:Moxy fixed it for me. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * I passed this as GA a while back and supported in its previous ACR but a fair bit has changed since then -- perhaps not quite all for the better, though I realise Hawkeye has made many of those changes in response to other reviewers' comments...
 * I'm not about to argue the point about it (not) being a single strategy but, if not, I'd kind of expect the phrase to be in inverted commas (the strategy you have when you're not having a strategy).
 * A Clayton's strategy? I've removed the bit about it not being a single strategy, so now it becomes a strategy that encompasses a series of plans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A Clayton's strategy indeed -- heh, almost makes one feel sorry for the non-Australians out there who don't have that frame of reference... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They could read the Wikipedia. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being a single strategy also seems to count against it being a "grand" strategy, as in the infobox, though I admit to not being that familiar with the definition of "grand stategy". In any case, nowhere in the article is it cited as such.
 * Removed this from the infobox. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's not by any means unique to this article and has probably been discussed elsewhere but this practice of saying "British Royal Navy" is a bit cringe-worthy. It'd be understandable if "Royal Navy" was a more obscure term and not linked but that's not the case (I could just about handle "Britain's Royal Navy" as a variation, if one insists, for some reason it sounds a trifle less superfluous). I note that, thankfully, "British Royal Air Force" isn't being used (yet), nor is "German Kriegsmarine"... ;-)
 * Deleted "British". I think it was there because of "Germany's High Seas Fleet". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You generally seem to include "Sir" in the piped links of knights' names but not always -- should be consistent.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The strategy was presented to the Dominions at the 1923 Imperial Conference -- I wonder at this point whether, in your research, you've found when it was first called the "Singapore strategy" (with or without quotes)...
 * I had not even thought of that. I will re-check the sources from the 1930s. There was a 1942 book entitled "Strategy at Singapore". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you must get sick of us saying it but watch for overlinking: you've done Churchill, for instance, at least three times in the body of the article.
 * Unlinked the second occurrence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1939, Prime Minister Robert Menzies replaced the heads of the Army and RAAF with British officers -- I think you'll find that Burnett became CAS in February 1940 (though the negotiations were complete by late 1939).
 * OOops. Re-written this bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After these nitpicks, I have to say that the additional illustrations are excellent, and the prose is also looking good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly fond of the opening shot, of the Repulse steaming towards you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If only the plan itself had been that impressive, eh? Anyway, I'm happy with all the changes -- well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support This is a comprehensive article that meets the A class criteria. I do have some suggestions for further improvement though:
 * I think that I've seen maps showing the location of Singapore and Hong Kong in relation to the main trade routes of the British Empire (and Japan?), and such a map would add a lot of value to the article by illustrating Singapore's strategic position.
 * I've seen them too, but I don't have one here. I found a map of the British empire, but am still trying to decide if it improves the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit odd that only the British 18th Division and Australian 8th Division are identified as having been captured at Singapore when Indian units made up a large share of the defenders.
 * A British editor added the 18th Division, probably to show that Britain did not abandon Singapore. I then added the 8th Division. Expanded the casualties list, so it is now clear that Asian troops made up the majority of the force. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of scope to expand the aftermath section to discuss the long-term results of the failure of the Singapore Strategy.
 * can you be a bit more specific? What should be mentioned? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Topics such as the influence it had on the concept of Imperial defence, the political fall out at the time and afterwards seem worth covering (even in the negative). Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ideally, this fleet would be able to intercept and defeat a Japanese force heading south towards India or Australia. Such a fleet required a well-equipped base and Singapore was chosen as the most suitable location in 1919. Work would continue on a naval base and its defences over the next two decades. ... The Singapore strategy envisaged that a war with Japan would have three phases:": My preference would be to reword either the first or second "would". The first and third ones mean "was supposed to", which might made the reader stumble on the second one, which is the future-in-past tense. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed the second one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history.": Just to be clear, my reading of WP:LQ is that this is fine if the period/full stop is in the source. Some FAQ reviewers disagree, saying that LQ requires the period to follow the quote marks since "its coverage within the quotation is considered unnecessary".  Your call.
 * The full stop is in the original. My Australian style guide (which quotes Churchill as an example) says: If any part of the printed sentence or sentences contains matter not quoted, then the final stop should be placed outside the closing quotation mark. So outside it goes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The lead and the first section weren't bad, but they were a bit of a slog.  Hopefully I'll have more time to copyedit this tomorrow, and if someone else wants to beat me to it, be my guest.  It may be helpful to check my edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "east of Malta": Maybe "in or near Asia"?
 * "east of Malta" is more precise. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "an adequate base for it": for what?
 * The third phase. Re-word to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "It called for Australia's first line of defence to be a strong air arm, supported by developing the munitions industry in order to allow the Army to be quickly expanded.": I'm not sure what you're saying.
 * Re-worded to  It called for Australia's first line of defence to be a powerful air arm, supported by a well-equipped Army that could be rapidly expanded to meet an invasion threat. This, in turn, required a strong munitions industry. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "With a battleship of the day costing ...": I can't tell whether this is the position of Fullam, the Labor party, the army, or all of the above.
 * All of the above. re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:MHCL. They're not hard to spot, and they're getting a little tedious to fix.  I'll do them this time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, everything looks good, except I'm not sure I understand what the last four sentences mean, and the last one is a quote, so it needs attribution. - Dank (push to talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I can close this due to my earlier review/support, but I would like to list it for closure on the Coord talk page. How is it? The closing quote is cited, it just looks to me like the preceding statement (In view of the diminished resources of the British Empire, the Singapore strategy became increasingly unrealistic) should end with a colon rather than a full stop. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

- Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye, the last paragraph starts off attributing Richmond, but the last sentence (a quote) is cited to Callahan, so I'm not sure who said it. Per WP:MOS and Chicago (somewhere in chapter 13), quotations of this length should be attributed in the text, not just cited or even just attributed in a footnote.  Also, I'm not sure what the last 4 sentences are saying.  I don't like to jump on wording that I don't quite understand, but there's enough of it in a short span here that I'm losing the meaning:
 * "employment of what was available was frequently poor": I get no mental image from that.
 * "As for the Singapore strategy itself,": I think I get what you're saying, you were talking about the weakness of the fleet, and now you want to say that the strategy wouldn't have worked even with a strong fleet. But some readers will stumble and think: were we not talking about the Singapore strategy already?  And ... although you're saying you're now going to discuss the strategy itself, you don't, really.
 * Removed this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Its emptiness was eloquent ...": the illusion? Not getting how an empty illusion can be eloquent.
 * Removed this too, although it was quite poetic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Woo-hoo, I think we can list for closure now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. 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.