Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Take Ichi convoy


 * 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 discussion.

Take Ichi convoy

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article about a little-known but strategically important convoy operation has recently been peer reviewed (attracting only a single comment) and I think that it now meets the A-class criteria. I would appreciate other editors' views on this and any suggestions on how to develop the article to FA standard. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Support All resolved-- Patton t / c 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Other than those 4 errors nothing wrong at all. It's an absolutly brilliant article, and I'm sure it will pass FAC immediatly after this ACR.-- Patton t / c 14:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The convoy left Shanghai on 17 April 1944 carrying two infantry divisions to reinforce the defense of the Philippines and western New Guinea. – (Lede, first paragraph) I thinky ou should replace "the defence" with whatever units were defending at the time, it provides more info.
 * The Take Ichi convoy sailed from Shanghai bound for Manila on 17 April – (Shanghai to Manila, first paragraph) shoudl there be a comma between Shangai and boun? It doesn't sound right.
 * I don't think that one's needed given that the sentence is short and deals with a single fact
 * US Navy signals intelligence analysts guided USS Jack towards the convoy – (Shanghai to Manila, second paragraph) What was the Jack? A battleship? Destroyer? Submarine? Readers should know without having to follow the link. Also "US" should have periods, like "U.S.".
 * ✅ for the submarine and 'U.S.' (including 'U.S. Navy, which I hope is OK)
 * USN positioned submarines to ambush the Japanese ships. – (Manila to Halmahera, third paragraph) What does "USN" mean? You should put (USN) after the first mention of the U.S. Navy
 * I've done that in article's introduction. Do you think that it's also needed in the body of the article?
 * I've done that in article's introduction. Do you think that it's also needed in the body of the article?
 * Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - (this version)
 * Dabs/external links look good.
 * Ref #5 needs pp., not p. :-)
 * ✅ - well spotted!
 * Madej, W. Victor (1981). Japanese Armed Forces Order of Battle 1939 - 1945. Volume I. Allentown: Game Marketing Company.
 * Should have an ISBN, no?
 * The edition I used didn't have an ISBN in its publishing details.
 * ...and worldcat.org agreed with you. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Morison, Samuel Eliot (2001). New Guinea and the Marianas March 1944 – August 1944. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II Volume VIII (Castle books ed.). Edison: Castle Books. ISBN 0785813098.
 * Should "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II" be italicized?
 * I've used the 'series' field in the standard reference template and it doesn't italicise series titles
 * I've manually italicized it. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to add OCLC's later tonight. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments and your MOS changes. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added all but one OCLC, as I'm not sure which one is the right one; can you take a look at this and determine which book is the correct one? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the first one (I think; I've only used the online version and the link claims that my nearest copy is in Germany!). I've added the number. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it said the same thing for me... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I couldn't find any big issues.  Good work.  I checked Hayashi's Kogun book and he didn't have any information on this convoy.  Finding the right campaign to include this incident in I guess is kind of difficult, perhaps this one? Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that vote and your changes. The convoy is relevant to the Western New Guinea campaign and the Battle of Morotai and is used in several books as an example of Japan's faulty anti-submarine efforts and the benefits the Allies gained from breaking the Japanese codes. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comments Support. Looks pretty good to me. No issues for me. I would have considered it part of the Western New Guinea Campaign myself. In future you might consider the use of Template:USS which formats the names of ships for you. *Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You list the tonnages of the merchant ships, which is fine, but could you link the first usage of tons to Gross Register Tonnage for the people who are unfamiliar with this term, and might think it has something to do with weight?
 * You mention and link the radio traffic analysts in the Aftermath section, but this is the third mention; they appear in the two preceding sections.
 * It's actually the first mention of traffic analysis (as opposed to code breaking). As the Allies knew the convoy's location and route through code breaking, traffic analysis wasn't an important part of the battle - it's only relevance to the convoy is that it was suggested to have been a factor explaining why the convoy was detected after the event.
 * No, that's not right. The article is correct here. The codebreakers found out about the convoy and its route from the Water Transport code messages, but it was the radio traffic analysts that actually tracked the convoy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your source for that? - did I miss-read Drea's book? Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When Drea talks about "Navy traffic analysts" on p. 129 (which you note in "Shanghai to Manila") he is talking about radio traffic analysis (cf. pp 38-39). Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks; I think that I've fixed that now. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the codebreakers, who are linked late but appear early. I think you should also mention Ultra somewhere. A non-military reader might not know what the codebreakers did.
 * I've tried to explain this in the 'background' section. I wanted to link to Ultra, but the article deals exclusively with breaking the German codes and there doesn't appear to be an equivalent article on the code breaking effort in the Pacific(!). Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it's supposed to - there is a Japanese section - but that article needs a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of Ultra. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention of Ultra. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2009 (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.