Talk:The Bomber Mafia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Malcolm Gladwell devoted four episodes of his podcast Revisionist History to air power in World War II before writing The Bomber Mafia? Source: [1]
  • ALT1:... that Thomas E. Ricks called Malcolm Gladwell's The Bomber Mafia "a conversational work"? Source: [2]
  • ALT2:... that Malcolm Gladwell's The Bomber Mafia began as an audiobook before it transitioned to a print book? Source: Gladwell 2021, p. 209
  • ALT3:... that military historian Saul David called Malcolm Gladwell's The Bomber Mafia "error prone" and "bedevilled by the same oversimplification of the world into a single Big Idea that is characteristic of his other work"? 1
  • ALT4:... that in a review for Malcolm Gladwell's The Bomber Mafia, The Washington Post had to issue a correction based on information a reviewer relayed to her readers from the book? [3]
  • ALT5:... that Malcolm Gladwell's The Bomber Mafia, about the Bomber Mafia of World War II, concludes that "LeMay won the battle. [...] Hansell won the war" with regard to high-precision aerial bombing? Gladwell 2021, p. 206

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Willock

5x expanded by Therapyisgood (talk) and Kchishol1970 (talk). Nominated by Therapyisgood (talk) at 21:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Does not meet inline citation requirements (the exception is fiction works can have plot that's verifiable to the original, but not nonfiction works). You can fix this by adding inline citations with page numbers in the book where the points are supported.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
• Interesting: - I don't really see how either of the hooks is that interesting. "Conversational" is typical for popular history works. It's not surprising that he would discuss on his podcast and then publish a book

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Needs some changes before this is eligible for DYK (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The article has been sourced. I've added an alt hook. Aside from the alt-hook I added, do you have anything different to suggest? Is the new alt hook OK now? Therapyisgood (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think ALT2 meets the requirements. I think you'd be better off trying to quote one of the reviewers who make bold claims. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

New one added w/quote. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Therapyisgood, ALT3 runs 217 prose characters, well above the 200-character maximum, so I've struck it. Can you please propose something shorter? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: added another. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging buidhe to see whether this hook meets her approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure... it's a bit convoluted and I'm not 100% sure what it's trying to say. I think you might be better off trying to summarize the book's core argument in a hook, since it is somewhat revisionist and is more likely to be interesting than more obscure details about the book. (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, @BlueMoonset: another alt added. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Approving ALT5. (t · c) buidhe 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bomber Mafia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Homesteading this. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I haven't read the book. Sounds like rubbish.

• • Yes. I thought this review was particularly good. They say Gladwell has the ability to influence thousands with the book being so mainstream, but for a book so popular it should have been fact checked better, and the main premise of the book was inaccurate. Alas. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Ranks are wrong. "General" Haywood S. Hansell, should be "Major General" in the first appearance lead and the body.
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Same for Major General Curtis LeMay
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• "General" Arthur Harris should be Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• "This could lead to a minimum of casualties" are we talking about casualties in the air or on the ground?
  • This is more my paraphrasing of the text. The exact text is: "Because the Norden represented a dream — one of the most powerful dreams in the history of warfare: if we could drop bombs into pickle barrels from thirty thousand feet, we wouldn't need armies anymore. We wouldn't need to leave young men dead on battle-fields or lay waste to entire cities. We could reinvent war. Make it precise and quick and almost bloodless. Almost." I've added "war-time" before "causalities" for added context. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Does the book cover Hansell's less than stellar experience in Europe?
  • It does go over his failed bombing of a German plant that made ball bearings. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit about that to the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I've been reverted, and I don't know enough about the subject to give a real opinion. Here is the diff. What is your opinion? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Does it mention other members of the bomber mafia like Donald Wilson and Kenneth Walker?
  • Walker no, Wilson only in passing. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Or anything between 1945 and 1991?
  • I agree something more could be added. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Bombing of Tokyo on 10 March 1945" Link Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945), and you've switch date formats. Pick one.
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Switched dates. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• You mention his treatment of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the reviews but not the summary.
  • Removed from reviews. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• "After the United States invasion of Kuwait, David L. Goldfein states that by then bombs could hit, with precision, a specific wing of a building." General David L. Goldfein. Some context needed here: is Goldfein being quoted? (Suggest splitting last two sentences off into their own paragraph.)
  • Split. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing

• • I'll get to this shortly, thank you for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)