Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Graham Colm 16:57, 29 March 2014 [1].

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC) and Binksternet (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of history's best known events. It also ranks 282 in traffic on the English wikipedia. About 2.4 million times per annum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article made GA three months ago, in a thorough review conducted by Anotherclown who is a veteran editor in the military field. A week ago, the article passed the tough A-Class review conducted by the WikiProject Military history. Here's the A-Class version of the article from 18 January 2014. Of course, the topic is of much wider interest than a purely military audience. I think now is a good time to see that the article satisfies the needs of the English-speaking world. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado

edit

Comments after reading through the article (not yet really "a review")

  • Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation: ... Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler." "compromise" is wrong here. The word "comprise" was probably intended, but "include" is quite likely to be the best translation of the original as it refers to only a part of the whole. If this is a mistranslation from the Japanese you can correct it, otherwise it needs a [sic].
  • Japanese-language references (I noticed Kido & Yoshitake 1966 which is presumably in Japanese) need |trans_title=... and |language=Japanese parameters (similar if there are any other foreign-language refs).

--Mirokado (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! There's no need to post a New York Review of Books review at FAC. A few comments here and source check there are most welcome. I've checked this source and it seems that "comprise" is correct. (But Wainstock p. 176 says "compromise")
Yes, "comprise" looks correct based on the text provided by Hoshina (which is very interesting to read). Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've translated 木戶幸一日記 (Kido Kōichi nikki) as ("Kido Kōichi diary". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background / Air raids on Japan: In the large scale industrial warfare ..., the primary aim of the USAAF was ...: "In this large scale ..." will read better.
  • Background / Atomic bomb development: scientists and technicians at the Los Alamos under ...: Remove "the".
  • Preparations / Organisation and training:
  • Preparations / Bombs: "tamper" has a specific technical meaning in the context of atomic weapons, which I had to look up. Please clarify the article text (for printed versions) and add a wikilink, thus: "Magnesium was chosen because it does not act as a tamper (neutron reflector)."
  • Preparations / Choice of targets: In the list of criteria, the quote is misplaced: it is relevant to the first and second items but not to the third.
  • Hiroshima / Hiroshima during World War II: the [[5th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)|5th Division]] and the [[IJA 224th Division|224th Division]], a recently formed mobile unit.: The redlink target is inconsistent with the naming of the existing article. It looks as if [[224th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)|224th Division]] would be a better redlink definition here.
That was quick! Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiroshima / The bombing:
    • Some times for the aircraft themselves may be helpful: when did they take off from Tinian, when did they rendezvous over Iwo Jima? (corresponding information is given for the flight to Nagasaki).
    • Japanese early warning radar detected ...: The timing will be clearer to the reader if this sentence begins something like "During the night of August 5–6, Japanese early warning radar detected ..."
    • The all-clear was sounded in Hiroshima at 12:05.[117] About an hour before the bombing, the air raid alert was sounded again, as Straight Flush flew over the city. ... The all-clear was sounded over Hiroshima again at 07:09.[119] Something wrong with the timings here. All-clear at 12:05 and again at 07:05. If the other raids were night bombing (mentioned elswhere in the article), five minutes after midnight is 00:05.
  • Hiroshima / Japanese realization of the bombing: do we know the name of the staff officer who flew to the city, gave the first comprehensive report and started to organise relief measures? If so, please add it.
  • Nagasaki / The bombing:
    • "Sweeney continued to wait for The Big Stink, ...": The aircraft name seems to be just Big Stink according to other occurrences here and in Big Stink. Replace by "Sweeney continued to wait for Big Stink, ..." or change the others to include "The".
    • Big Stink's absence seems to have had a significant effect on the mission. Can we add a sentence saying what it was in fact doing? (the plane article says it arrived late at Nagasaki to take photos of the blast effects and then joined the other aircraft at Okinawa, but I'm not seeing sources there suitable for an FA to confirm that).

-- Mirokado (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've addressed all my concerns with the text. I'll try to have another look round on Sunday. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-attack casualties:
    • People opposed to the atomic bombings have claimed that birth defects and deformities were common among the children of survivors who were pregnant at the time of the bombings. We need an example ([who?]) of such a claim and a reference for this sentence. I'm not at all trying to encourage you to remove the sentence which provides balance but we need to know, for example, whether these were claims based on studies on people or "just" the fears or studies on mice mentioned in Voosen 2011 (if so, the Voosen ref repeated here with a brief clarification would be OK)
    • James Crow expressed that they could still find the likelihood of birth defects or other causes among the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.: I'm pretty sure this should read "James Crow expressed doubt that they could still find ...".
    • Twice in this paragraph we refer to "birth defects or other causes". I would think of birth defects etc as "effects" of the radiation rather than "causes", but "birth defects or other effects" would not read well...
    • Many members of the ABCC and, later the RERF, were still looking for possible birth defects or other causes among the survivors decades later, but found no evidence that they were common among the survivors. This sentence is problematical from the point of view of formulation, here are some suggestions:
      • repetition of "birth defects or other causes" (or whatever if that is changed) from earlier in the paragraph, perhaps we can say "these problems" or similar the second time?
      • repetition of "the survivors": can we omit "among the survivors" as it is implied by context?
      • "common" is a rather imprecise summary of medical study results: it depends a bit on what the references actually say of course, but "... found no evidence that they were significantly more common than in the general population." is an example of how the results might have been expressed. -- Mirokado (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding those who say that birth defects were significant after the bombings: I have found by searching the literature that ignorance[2][3][4] is apparently the main driver in writing that birth defects were high, rather than just "People opposed to the atomic bombings". More reasonable criticisms of the Hardin Jones research of 1957 which found no significant birth defects, were given by the National Academy of Sciences which pointed out that the control population in Kobe, 18 miles from the blast, also received some radiation exposure. This same criticism was leveled at the James Neel study from 1960.The Consequential Damages of Nuclear War: THE RONGELAP REPORT Many writers clearly understand that birth defects were not significant, even among those who find it does not help them make their point about how nuclear war is bad.[5][6][7][8] Perhaps we can simply attribute the authors who say the birth defects were high, for instance historian Ronald E. Powaski who writes "an increase in stillbirths, birth defects, and infant mortality was also clear in the 70,000 pregnancies examined in the study." This is found in March to Armageddon: The United States and the Nuclear Arms Race, 1939 to the Present (1987) Oxford University Press, page 27, ISBN 0195364546.
Note that several books discuss the greater incidence of neurological abnormalities such as microencephaly and anencephaly found within the Hiroshima/Nagasaki subjects.[9][10][11]
I think we need to recast these few sentences so as to avoid accusing "People opposed to the atomic bombings". Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I rewrote the paragraph about birth defects, giving it a broader perspective in accordance with my notes above. Of course, Kobe is not 18 miles from Hiroshima; it is 184 miles by car according to Google Maps. I wrote "approximately 180 miles" in the text. Kobe is much farther from Nagasaki. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that rewrite, which has covered most of the above points. Please have another look at the "expressed that they could still find" phrase which looks wrong. --Mirokado (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at further sources, I came to the realization that Johnston (or her editors) makes the mistake of confusing Kobe with Kure. The distance of Kure is accurately said to be 18 miles from Hiroshima. Kure is the control city, not Kobe. Thus I had to rework the section for that, and also for the James Crow bit where he says he thinks he "could still find" birth defects. Instead, the book says Crow studied the data in 1985 and confirmed the earlier finding by Neel. The book follows the Crow bit with something about possibly finding birth defects in later studies, but it is inconclusive and not worthy of relaying to the reader. I corrected the Crow bit per the source. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well done. --Mirokado (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • alt text for pictures: where present, the alt text is fine, describing what we can see in the picture as opposed to the caption which gives details of what is depicted. Please add alt text for the rest of the pictures, or ask me to do so if you prefer.

I try not to make requests in dribs and drabs, but I like to look through an article once more if I am still finding typos, so I'll try to look through it again during the week when I get time. -- Mirokado (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC) (updated 12:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I still hope to have one more look through this article and expect to support it, but it is certainly too late tonight! --Mirokado (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preparations to invade Japan: we could wikilink Operation Ketsugō. This is currently a redirect to a section of Operation Downfall but is potentally its own article.
  • Air raids on Japan: and ultimately enemy action. My attention was caught by "ultimately", since elsewhere in the article we are told that Japanese air defence was largely ineffective over the targets. Craven & Cate (1953) mention air defences, but don't seem to support a special emphasis on them as the cause of the lack of success, but that account is so detailed I may have missed something (thus, remove "ultimately" or otherwise clarify).
    • In military terms, this means something rather different. The AA defences are effective up to a certain height, but the B-29 bombers could fly higher so that they are not affected. The result was that no bombers were shot down, but their bomb load and accuracy was greatly reduced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • units and values: sometimes the article uses metric units (with imperial conversion), other times imperial (with metric conversion). I would think that imperial first is better here, as that is what was current at the time and what is used in quoted or referenced contemporaneous documents
    • Hiroshima / The bombing: the predetermined detonation height about 1,968 feet (600 m) above the city: The value given is far too precise to be "about" and an implausible value for a predetermined setting. This is the exact equivalent of 600m and the predetermined height would have been in feet. Can we provide a reliably sourced value? (The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions p. 33 gives 1885 ± 50ft as the estimated height of the explosion.)
    • Nagasaki / The bombing: similarly here, I doubt whether the precision of 469 m (1,539 ft) is justified and this is inconsistent with the units used for Hiroshima
      • As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Manhattan Project largely used metric, while the USAAF used imperial. I'm a bit iffy about reversing conversions for precisely the reason that they tend to exaggerate the accuracy. I'll look at these bits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex Wellerstein of the Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics, writes in his blog that William Penney, Baron Penney determined the proper height to be 500 feet for a 1 kiloton bomb used on Germany, higher for larger bombs, and higher for flimsy houses as seen in Japan. Penney cites previous altitude prediction work by Bernard Waldman. The point is that Penney worked in feet, acres, yards, pounds, etc. Several books describe how various altitudes were under discussion by Oppenheimer. This page hosted by Cryptome reproduces info taken from a 1995 CD-ROM publication by Chuck Hansen. Explosion altitudes are in feet. Historian Lillian Hoddeson's book Critical Assebly describes the altitudes in feet on page 261, saying that Oppenheimer directed that Little Boy be exploded at 1850 feet plus or minus 100 feet. The actual device which determined the altitude during the combat drop was a parallel set of four "Archie" radar units, originally a British design but subsequently modified by the US and manufactured by RCA. The Archies were calibrated in feet. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan: the article linked in third core does not mention that this "demon core" was the third core. If it was, we probably need a phrase of context here (can that be sourced to Hoddeson et al. (1993)? The other article could in that case also be updated.
  • reference author "Hart, Basil Liddell" should be "Lidell Hart, B. H." (as he was normally known and as the article B. H. Liddell Hart or "Liddell Hart, Basil" if you want to use first names where known. This occurs twice.

I have been thinking about some of the points raised by other reviewers:

The title Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is I think OK, "atomic bomb" being by far the most familiar usage in connection with these events.
"Atomic bomb" was a popular term, in use with the general public in 1945 due to the writings of H. G. Wells and others. Groves decided to use it because it was more familiar. The scientists wanted "nuclear". We say "weapon" rather than "bomb" today because they are in warheads, artillery rounds, demolition charges, depth charges, etc. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not on any reading notice a lack of balance or excessive American viewpoint in the article, which is about a military operation carried out by the USAAF. Many of the background and analysis sections have hatnotes to main articles which cover the related content in more detail. The last word goes to the Tokyo District Court.

This will be my last set of issues, honest. --Mirokado (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my pleasure to support this article now. Heights are being addressed carefully here and on the article talk page and the remaining points above are easily dealt with one way or the other. --Mirokado (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

edit

At first glance I see the infobox flag issue we have been discussing for weeks has still not been resolved. I also see "atomic" used instead of the more correct "nuclear" and a tendency to focus on the US experience rather than the Japanese (in the run-up section). There are some fairly major infelicities (howevers, WP:SEASON, etc) which will need a bit of copyediting. I see one sentence which isn't. The sourcing looks good and the pictures. Let me come back to this. --John (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will handle the infobox. I spent some time fiddling with it. The terms "atomic" and "nuclear" are generally interchangeable in the context of this article. See here for an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to move to oppose. Notwithstanding the sterling work that has been done and is being done on this article, the little UK flag is still giving way undue weight to the two (2) UK observers who sat in on one plane on one of the two attacks. We discussed a solution back in December, but it seemingly has still not been implemented. More importantly, as the reviewer below has noted, the story has been told largely from a US military point of view, neglecting the Japanese military and Japanese civilian points of view. I know sources exist which could be used to balance the article. It's a shame this has not been done. Roughly 50 times as many civilians died in these attacks as in the September 11 attacks; without getting all weepy about it, we should give that some weight, imagine if our article on those attacks focused mainly on the Al Qaeda methods and personnel. It wouldn't work, and neither does this. I don't like the nuclear-atomic thing either; I obviously get the point that terminology has shifted over the years, but as a scientist, I feel strongly that the "atomic" terminology is just plain wrong. Rethink required, on several fronts. --John (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The solution was implemented; the strengths are in the infobox. The British contribution was significant. The US and British governments intended that it be seen as an Allied effort. Most of the servicemen of the 509th CG were enlisted air and ground crew. Of them, only Tibbets would still be notable if the bombing had not occurred. Their contribution was outweighed by those of the 51 scientists and technicians of Project Alberta, many of whom are notable in their own right. Penney's contribution goes deeper than that, in that he was a close confidant of Groves, and also one of the people who chose Hiroshima as a target.
    2. As noted below, if you can suggest a good book on the relief efforts, I will obtain it and incorporate it.
    3. The title of the article represents substantial consensus over a long period of time. Your point is noted, but I will require a clear consensus before I rename the article to Nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The terminology isn't a show-stopper. The infobox slightly is. The slanted coverage very much is. I'm not sure what you mean by "relief efforts". I recommend Retribution by Max Hastings (ISBN 0307275361) as a source for the Japanese side of things. Do you know it? --John (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I am very much aware of the controversy surrounding that book, and that is why we are not using it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. Do you think controversy is always a bad thing? Do you think this is a controversial subject? Should controversy be avoided in talking about controversial things? Maybe if "we" had better answers to these questions than we do at present, this would be a better and more complete article. As it is, it's a long way off FA. It fails, in my strongly-held opinion, on 1b, 1c and 1d. Probably 1a too (it did the last time I looked) but that is a lot easier to fix. These three are hard to fix and I don't think, judging by your responses here, that they will be. --John (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Depends on what sort of controversy we are talking about. When the controversy is about the gross misuse of sources, it runs afoul of our requirement for reliable sources. The article is about a controversial subject, and I think it handles that well. I regard the work done on the leaflet campaign as one of Wikipedia's finest pieces of scholarship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Gross misuse of sources? --John (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        [12] Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I see he has courted controversy with his comments about Australian troops but I am struggling to see "gross misuse of sources" from that link. I'd be sad to think you have allowed this nationalistic opinion you hold to neglect an excellent source without any real reason. I hope that is not the case. --John (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read a few book reviews of Retribution, I find myself having to agree with John that it appears to be a fairly well-written book with that suffers from some minor factual errors here and there, but nothing that would disqualify it from being a reliable source. That being said, if its use in the article is unacceptable to you, Hawkeye7, I'm sure other books could be found that would help balance the article's coverage of the events (maybe some of the resources I have linked below?). Enough books have been written on the subject that it shouldn't be too hard to find ones that would better represent the Japanese perspective. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. Intriguing. If that's how he does all his research, then we do need to tread carefully. I'm really not familiar enough with either the subject matter or Max Hastings to comment on the quality of his work one way or another, so I won't. But Hawkeye7's rationale for not using the book still leaves me confused: does controversy over one chapter in a book necessarily cast the rest into doubt? The book reviews I read were quite positive. And does misusing a sentence from Wikipedia once cast the quality of all of one's work into doubt? I'm not defending Max Hastings; I'm just wondering if we have systematic evidence of poor research and "gross misuse" of sources? If so, then we should surely treat him as a questionable source, at best. If not, then I see no reason why we can't use his work in this article. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed very interesting. Do we have evidence of other errors (as opposed to saying things a few Australians don't like)? Has this been raised at WP:RSN? I think we would want to see much wider evidence and consensus before labelling a source (or an author) as unreliable like this. --John (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because otherwise, apart from that one careless error which was promptly corrected, this looks like the "controversy" around Antony Beevor's depiction of rape by the Red Army. Some Russian critics (who it later turned out had not even read the book) were upset that this traduced their proud nation etc etc. We should not confuse nationalistic amour-propre with academic dishonesty or "gross misuse of sources". There is a huge gap between them. --John (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, I have read Retribution, enjoying despite questions about its scholarship. I think it is a valid source for the general conclusions made by Hastings. I'm lost, though; can you give some indication here about what material you think we should incorporate from Retribution? Hastings says a lot of things about the atomic bombings, some which are contradictory because he explains opposing views. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny you should say that, I have been rereading the relevant chapters since the start of this conversation. I will have an answer to this question by the end of the week. --John (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible suggestion from AmericanLemming

edit

I don't mean to jumping into a conversation here, but if the book suggested by John is unacceptable to Hawkeye7, then perhaps I could suggest a few alternatives? I haven't read any of these books, but a quick Google search for "japanese historians atomic bomb" lead me to this American history textbook website page discussing the historiography of (and controversy surrounding) the bombings [13]

It gives several examples of books written by Western historians that oppose the decision to drop the atomic bombs: Fear, War and the Bomb (Blackett, 1948), Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (Alperovitz, 1965), The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Alperovitz, 1995), and Without Mercy (Downer, 1986). It also lists several links to articles for and against the bombings.
In doing that Google search I also found a book by a Japanese-American historian that takes a different view on the bombings: Racing the Enemy (Hasegawa, 2005).
I'll also throw out this link from the "American History for Australasian Schools" website: it seems to do a nice job summarizing the historiography on the issue: [14]
There's also this nice summary of the historiography from The Historical Society: [15]
And here's yet another succinct summary of the historiography from The New England Journal of History: [16]

I'm not sure if any of these will address John's concerns that the article does not do justice to the Japanese point of view, but I'd thought I'd try to steer the conversation away from the disagreement over Retribution, as that will probably not be very conducive to the improvement of the article, as I don't think John and Hawkeye7 are going to come to see things eye to eye on the issue of whether or not to use it as a source. Anyway, I hope these resources are somewhat helpful. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These books are all on my shelf, and I've already used Alperovitz and Hasegawa in the article. Alperovitz covers the decision making in the United States, which I think is already well covered in the article. Hasegawa writes (a ground-breaking account) about the diplomatic manoeuvring in the US, Japan and the Soviet Union. And I highly recommend them both. (I'm also recommending Frank's Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire.) In fact, if you compare the historiography article you cite with the Wikipedia article, you'll find all the books there. However, these are not what we want. What we're looking for is an account of events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'll keep looking. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7: It's been nearly a week. Any success finding Japanese accounts of the events on the ground? There seems to be a large number of primary accounts in English, but I don't know if there are any secondary summaries of those primary accounts, at least not in English. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've found some. I'll add the extra material on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EddieHugh

edit

I'm interested in certain aspects of this, so will comment as I notice things.

  • "Although some Japanese were taken prisoner,[232] most fought until they were killed or committed suicide.[233]". The paragraph contents before this sentence mean that this implies civilians & military. The source is specifically about the military, and even then is really only about PoWs at one camp in New Zealand. "most" requires statistical back up for total war casualties, not just a few extreme examples.
  • There seems to be no mention of the idea that the bombs were dropped by the US in order to influence Russia – in part to end the war before Russia could gain Japanese territory, and in part as a demonstration of the weapon's effects. These may be minority views, but they are seriously discussed.
  • There's vast detail on the process of bombing (especially for Nagasaki – a paragraph on a seemingly irrelevant letter; a paragraph on a plane landing; a paragraph on a confused journalist...), and comparatively little on what the bombs did, physically and otherwise. I suspect that this is a symptom of a strong lean towards an Allied/Western/Anglophone perspective in the article. Further examples: "Depiction, public response and censorship" is almost all about the UK and the US (surely the reaction in Japan is at least as important, and what about in China, Korea...); the more than 600,000 (?) survivors get 3.5 lines on my screen, the same as the quirky trivia story of one 'double survivor' (the consequences, including societal, for the survivors were great, but are they mentioned?); there's detailed information on damage to Mitsubishi plants, but things such as Urakami Cathedral are not mentioned; the first thing written about the Hiroshima Peace Memorial is that it was designed and built by a Czech man; "Casualty estimates for immediate deaths range from 40,000 to 75,000. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000" (is there a description of why? The next paragraph has lots of detail on Allied PoWs, but the 5,000–40,000 Japanese get nothing that I can find, except in the lead, which should be a summary).
  • There aren't many sources from Japanese writers, but there is lots available, including in English.
  • Linked to my third bullet point, the article does show the signs of coming from those with a military interest, as indicated by the nominator. As a military article, it is detailed if still too close to one-sided, but the events are about far more than decisions, orders and actions. Considering the readers: are the 2.4M looking for detail on military hardware and action, or on broader matters? Both, perhaps, but more of the latter, I suggest.

Even for "the needs of the English-speaking world", then, I feel that the current incarnation leans very strongly to one perspective and that it concentrates excessively on military aspects of what is a much more nuanced topic.

I didn't start writing with this intention, but I have to put myself down as oppose. EddieHugh (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I have removed this.
  2. The Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has its own article. There is only a summary here. Same goes for the Surrender of Japan and Hibakusha. The article's focus is on the bombing, which is only covered in this article.
  3. Do you have a recommended source? The editors were particularly interested in locating details about the relief efforts.
  4. The former by a long shot actually if article traffic analysis is anything to go by. The article needs to cover both.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN61: formatting
  • FN83: need full citation info
  • FN88: possible to provide translation of title and publisher?
  • Be consistent in how website names are formatted - compare for example FNs 35 and 123 and 125
  • FN133: missing publisher
  • FN138: formatting, and publication wikilink goes to the wrong place
  • FN143: publisher? Check for other cites that are missing info
  • Why is the Truman Library linked in FN145 but not 132? Check for consistency
  • Fn194: page formatting
  • FN214: page?
  • Compare FN216 and 217 and 228
  • FN221: location?
  • Fn227, 245: formatting
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN233: pages?
  • Why does Ward come after Williams?
  • More specific location for Coster-Mullen?
  • Gruhl: which New Brunswick?
  • Lifton appears to be combining info from two different editions - the one in New York was published by Random House, and UNC is in North Carolina
  • Be consistent in whether you use D.C. or DC
  • Kanabun: date formatting
  • FN66/67 appear to be referring to a source in Further reading - if so, that should be moved. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that Nikkimaria. I think I have made all the required changes. I've added translations, but the templates do not have a field for a translation of the publisher, so I put it in with the publisher. The neatorama appeares to be sourced from this book. Given the comments on the page by the publisher (not to mention Coster-Mullin and Krauss's comments) I have removed the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from Curly Turkey

edit

I live in a city near Mt Fuji that was firebombed ten times during the war. Not that that makes me an expert or anything ... anyways, not all the following is necessarily required to meet FA standards, so feel free to strike back at any of my carpet bombing———

  • I realize there are strong ties to the US here, but at the same time it is an article that involves quite a number of nations, so wouldn't it make sense to privilege metric over imperial measures (e.g. with "{{convert|16|sqmi}} of the city and 267,000 buildings")? (Yes, yes, that's an awful fine hairsplit)
    You won't get any disagreement from me about measurements. Everyone understands metric, but few people remember the old measurements. But conversions have to be handled with great care. On a recent book of mine, the copy editors wanted to convert tons to tonnes, but of course tons were a unit of volume in the old (40 cubic feet to be exact). As a historian I have a strong preference for the original measurements. FWIW, the Manhattan Project largely used metric, but the USAAF used imperial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
edit
Background
edit

Hopefully I'll find time to continue before long ...

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! It's great to see some reviewers I haven't seen before. (Could also use a few of you on this article hint. hint.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from Curly Turkey

edit
Preparations
edit
Hiroshima
edit

More later ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc

edit
  • Oppose - I've been watching this for a couple of weeks and I think that the best thing to do at this point would be to close the nom and open a peer review. After an extensive peer review it could be renomed. The prose is quite clunky at spots: "officially bringing an end to World War II", "In the Pacific during this period", "Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well", "the defeat of Germany caused the focus to turn to use against Japan", and the article's organization at times seems haphazard. The bottom line is that the prose is not at all brilliant, in fact many sections make for some painful and confusing reading. In the nominators defense this is a monumental topic, but I fear it might be a bit over their heads. I strongly suggest that during said peer review the nominators make an effort to introduce balance through the application of Japanese sources, as this article is decidedly US-centric, which is the other reason why I've opposed its promotion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked the wording in the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this diff shows the changes made to the wording problems identified by GabeMc. His complaint that the topic is over the heads of the nominators is not actionable and should be disregarded. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I meant was that this massive topic could use an extensive peer review and that the two of you, no matter how dedicated, could use a little help from your friends on this one. My oppose is based almost entirely on the prose and as such its very much actionable. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's concentrate on prose issues that you can identify explicitly, and not try to determine whether myself, Hawkeye7, Anotherclown, Oda Mari, Nick-D, Peacemaker67, AustralianRupert, XXzoonamiXX, Mr Stephen, Boundarylayer, Tn9005 Duffit5, Postdlf, Mr305worldwide, Factory, MaGioZal, JByrd, Wikiuser100, David Fuchs, Trappist the monk, TwoTwoHello, Martarius, Curly Turkey, THEMICK, Zedshort, CombatWombat42, Chris857, Indopug, Lightlowemon, John, Lacrimosus and yourself are not up to this "monumental" task. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be honest I tried to put together a detailed review, but I abandoned the effort after identifying a large number of issues that quite frankly were exhausting. FTR, I am the third editor to oppose promotion while only one has supported, so its not like the article is almost there and I'm being difficult. I am glad to provide a detailed review most of the time, but this seemed like too much work for FAC, which is not a workshop like peer review is, hence my suggestion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to be honest, the opinion of an editor who can't be bothered detailing what issues he has found, if any, must be disregarded by the delegates. I therefore expected the article to be promoted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Promoted? With three opposes and only one support? I advise against making this personal, but I "can't be bothered" to detail the issues because they are too numerous and FAC is not a workshop. FTR, the main reason why this article won't be promoted this time around is due to the complete lack of objective balance; i.e. its written from an entirely US-centric POV with little to no mention of the numerous Japanese sources that should be brought in during the peer review that the article so badly needs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominators are knowledgeable and diligent and will work through lists of issues. FAC is the appropriate place for review and comment. The article will be promoted in the absence of specific issues. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if after almost two months at FAC you've only earned one support and three opposes, then I'm not sure why you think that the delegates will pass it this time around. FWIW, if you do take my advice and open a peer review, then I'd be happy to take a look at the article there. My specific issues are that the prose is not FA quality and the POV is not neutral, having been written almost entirely from a US-centric POV. Per reviewers EddieHugh, John, and me, you need to bring-in some of the more respected Japanese sources so that the story reflects the side of the victims and not just the Allies. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What specific incidents should be covered? What specific prose is not up to standard? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say it again: the issues are too numerous to mention and FAC is not a workshop. Why don't you ask Curly Turkey to finish the review they abandoned 6 weeks ago? Please don't make this personal; I don't oppose many FAC noms, but I feel like this was one that justified the opposition. Anyway, if you get John and EddieHugh to strike their opposes I'll do the same. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/archive1&oldid=1086354017"