Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Singapore strategy/archive1

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

 * Lede
 * Don't know why, but "Such a fleet required a well-equipped base and Singapore was chosen as the most suitable location in 1919." bugs me. I think "and" may not be the best choice here.
 * Dropping it makes for a staccato lead, with three very short sentences in a row. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Singapore strategy envisaged..." -- I'm assuming the planners of the Singapore strategy envisioned such a thing, and not the strategy itself.
 * Changed Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * " The idea of invading Japan was rejected as impractical. Nor did British naval planners expect that the Japanese would willingly fight a decisive battle against the odds." -- Starting with "nor" feels odd to me. Perhaps combine the two?
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, they were aware of the impact of a blockade..." -- Is the however necessary?
 * A bridging word is required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Origins
 * "... the Royal Navy was already facing serious challenges to its position as the world's most powerful fleet from two of its former allies, the United States Navy..." - So were they no longer legally allies, or? To the best of my knowledge the US and UK were mutually supportive for most of the 20th century. Also, later on you have the alliance with Japan ending in 1921; if so, immediately after WWI Japan was technically still an ally, right?
 * Dropped "two of its former allies" Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a check; in AuE is it common to just say "Cabinet" or "Admiralty" without "the" in front? Note that you have "the Treasury" later.
 * Cabinet almost always. Added "the" in front of "Admiralty". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Plans
 * "secret section"? As in, classified, or hidden, or...?
 * Changed to "classified as secret". Unfortunately there is no article on this, so it read awkwardly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "War Memorandum (Eastern) 1920 envisaged..." envisaged again.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have "the Admiralty" here. Also, shouldn't that be linked further up?
 * It already is. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "... estimate of the time ... varied over time". -- Perhaps drop "over time"?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * " The idea of invading Japan was rejected as impractical. Nor did British naval planners expect that the Japanese would willingly fight a decisive battle against the odds." -- Starting with "nor" feels odd to me. Perhaps combine the two?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "However, they were aware of the impact of a blockade..." -- Is the however necessary?
 * Tried to re-word this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "... trading with Japan ... trade with Japan" -- Any way to avoid the repetition?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Base development
 * Lord Trenchard - Perhaps a bit about why his opinion mattered. (rank, perhaps?)
 * Added rank and post. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Australia
 * "... a well-equipped Army..." - Shouldn't this be a well-equipped army, as it is preceded by the article a?
 * It is still referring to a specific army. Added "Australian"Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "... a fellow student of Shedden's..." - A fellow student? Who's the other one?
 * Lavarack, re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, shouldn't Shedden's full name be preceded by Sir?
 * No, he wasn't knighted until 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * British Army Quarterly - Worth a redlink?
 * I only use a red link if (a) someone else has already created it or (b) I am intending to create it. Neither applies here, so no red link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Outcome
 * "naval attaché" -- Shouldn't this be linked above in the plans section?
 * Yes. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * "... which was ordered to Malaya in January" - Perhaps "had been"?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Joint Planning Staff" - Worth a redlink?
 * I only use a red link if (a) someone else has already created it or (b) I am intending to create it. Neither applies here, so no red link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Joint Planning Staff considered the matter, and recommended that no inquiry be held, as it would not be possible to restrict its focus to the events surrounding the fall of Singapore, and it would inevitably have to examine the political, diplomatic and military circumstances of the Singapore strategy over a period of many years." -- Fairly long sentence, perhaps it should be split or trimmed
 * Can't you hear Sir Humphrey Appleby saying it?
 * Should we have wikilinks in that long quote?
 * No need. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)