Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft

World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft
I'm thinking this might have potential to go for Featured List. Or at least A-class for now. But I'd like to know what y'all think of it first. One thing to note with regard to the references, I'm pretty sure 'Dave's Warbirds' isn't a WP:RS, but the links to the fictional and a few of the 'odder' types to that site are included as further-information kind of things in addition to the 'normal' references. So, aside from that, anything that needs to be cleared up before nominating for ACR? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

 * Just a few minor points from me:
 * the title in the infobox seems slightly inconsistent with the article title. Should these be consistent?
 * Hmm. The short form (in the infobox) is "cleaner", but as the article title would imply all Japanese aircraft, not just those of WWII. Or is this a WP:COMMONSENSE issue and it should be assumed that the reader will either know it's WW2 aircraft or be able to determine reasonably enough?
 * Hi, yes I'm not so concerned about the "World War II" part, but the difference between "name" and "codename". It seems inconsistent and I think some readers would ask, "is there a difference?" Either the article could be renamed to include "codenames" or the infobox could just be changed to "name". That would solve this issue. Ultimately, of course, it is minor but these are the things that stick in the brain of an A-class or FA reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the lead "western men" should probably be capitalised as "Western men" (Western being a proper noun);
 * Done.
 * "other US and allied units" (I think allied should be capitalised as "Allied" as it is a proper noun in this context);
 * Done.
 * "To this day, many western historical" (capitalisation of "western" per above comment);
 * Done.
 * in the Citations there is Francillon 1970 and Francillon 1979, but the Bibliography only has one Francillon work (a 1979 second edition of a 1970 original). Are two different versions being cited, or is 1970 in the Citations a typo?;
 * That's a typo on my part, fixed. I assume the 2nd ed. date is the one that should be given, right?
 * Yes, that is my understanding. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * some of the Citations seem to use years but others don't. This seems a little inconsistent, is there a reason for this?
 * The article is the work of multiple editors; in essence, I found the article with the prose done, and then added the list and my own tweaks I'll add the years for consistency (and I see some of the cites can be 'merged', as well). Done.
 * some of the Citations end with full stops, but others don't (e.g. # 16 Tillman 2010, p.276);
 * Fixed
 * are there page numbers that could be cited for Mikesh 1993 and Handbook on Japanese Military Forces? If so, these should be added;
 * The trouble here is, in each of these citations, the page numbers would be different for each and every use of those cites. For example the A6M is on one page, the Ki-27 on another, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum...which would require a different cite for every entry and make the References section even more confusing than it is. My thought is that in this case, with 29 cites to one work, each on a different page, and 63 cites to another, also each on a different page, it would make more sense to simply cite the book as a whole.
 * Its entirely up to you, of course, but I'd strongly suggest adding the citations to the different page numbers. If this means you have an extra 80 odd citations, I don't see the issue, all it means is that the information is completely and (almost instantly) verifiable by someone with the book rather than asking them to thumb through the entire work to locate it. IMO, if this came up in an ACR, you would be risking having some reviewers opposing promotion, but that is just my opinion. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * in the Bibliography there are different styles of presentation because some entries use a template and others don't. For instance compare Bergerud to Wieliczko. In the first one the year comes straight after the author, but in the second it is almost at the end before the ISBN. Francillon is also presented differently. Use of the template is optional, but these should still be consistent in the way they are presented;
 * Ah, thanks. I'll fix these shortly.
 * are all the See also entries necessary? If you can work the links into the prose, they should be removed from the See also section. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about these. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the review! - The Bushranger One ping only 17:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick-D
I don't see any barriers to this reaching A class, and featured list should be possible (though I'm not familiar with how FLCs are assessed). My comments for this article are:
 * As noted in the introduction, it should be possible to find much better sources than 'Dave's Warbirds'
 * The names weren't "given by Allied personnel" - they were developed by a small team and then centrally proscribed
 * Linking 'man' and 'woman' seems to be over-linking
 * The description of how the Japanese assigned two different names to each type of aircraft is a bit unclear; more examples might help
 * What were the differences between the USAAF and USN's identification systems?
 * Was Captain McCoy assigned the task of coming up with a better designation system, or did he do it on his own initiative?
 * Is there a reason why the names are those of men and women in the lead but boys and girls in the second para of the 'History' section?
 * What's meant by 'fictional type'? Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Dank

 * Since a lot of readers won't know what a "reporting name" is, I think I'd prefer for the first sentence: "The World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft, often described as reporting names or codenames, were given by ...".
 * "During the first year of the Pacific War beginning on 7 December 1941,": I think I prefer "During the first year of the Pacific War, which began with the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941,"
 * "Imperial year 2596": At first occurrence, I prefer "Japanese Imperial year 2596", so the reader won't think that "Imperial" has the same kind of international currency as "Gregorian".
 * "each had their own different systems": This is a good example of perfectly good spoken English ... the extra word makes it harder for the listener to misunderstand ... that copyeditors generally consider redundant in formal English.  "each had their own systems" is better.
 * "into two categories; fighters and everything else.": Semicolons separate sentences that could stand on their own, so a colon is needed here.
 * "gave many of the aircraft 'hillbilly' names": Single quotes are much more common in non-AmEng; WP:MOS and American style guides ask for double quotes in most cases, including this one. In addition to the quotes around "hillbilly", I think I'd link it, too, mostly for the benefit of non-Americans; the lead paragraph of that article gives a concise sense of the word.
 * "Hap,": The comma goes outside. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)