Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Boomerang/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2020 [1].

Operation Boomerang

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a very ambitious, but only partially successful, Allied air raid of World War II. The operation involved an attack on oil facilities in the Japanese-occupied city of Palembang during August 1944. It was conducted by American B-29 bombers which were usually based in India and formed part of a series of heavy bomber attacks on Japanese-occupied cities in South East Asia. Despite a heavy investment of resources, including an airbase custom-built for the operation, the primary target of the bombers was barely damaged. The use of naval mines proved more successful, and marked the start of what proved to be a highly successful USAAF tactic.

The article passed a GAN in August 2018. After being further developed, it also passed a military history Wikiproject A-class review in July. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria may now be met. Please note that while the article is shorter than most of the other articles on air raids I've taken to FAC, this reflects the relatively modest range of sources which cover this attack - I'm confident that all the significant sources have been drawn on. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed at GAN and there isn't a massive amount I can see that needs tweaking. A few comments:

Lead
Body
  • suggest consistency with Dutch or Netherlands East Indies
  • link Bangkok
  • suggest "Arnold accepted this argument, and his 27 June targeting directive specified that the attack take place either at dawn or dusk and involve at least 50 aircraft"→"Arnold's 27 June targeting directive accepted this argument and further specified that the attack take place either at dawn or dusk." as we've already established it was for 50 aircraft
  • what fighter aircraft did the Japanese 9th Air Division have available?
    • I've looked everywhere for this since you raised in the GAN, but with no luck whatsoever. This has included checking the ANU Library and National Library of Australia. The best I could find is a brief mention in Hobbs of the Japanese aircraft in the area in January 1945, but these could have been totally different to what was there in August 1944. Sources seem to be OKish for Imperial Japanese Navy air units, but not for the IJAAF which was responsible for this area. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Japanese Ggeneral"

That's all I could find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

I had a look at this at ACR and could find very little to pick at. I shall try harder.

  • "but one was forced to ditch". Maybe link the slightly specialist "ditch" to Water landing?
  • "Unusually, the head of the USAAF, General Henry H. Arnold, directly commanded the Twentieth Air Force." This is the first mention of the Twentieth Air Force. It needs introducing properly, especially where it fits into the command structure.
  • "XX Bomber Command conducted its first combat mission against Bangkok on 5 June 1944." Suggest commas around "against Bangkok", so it means what you want it to mean.
  • "two B-29s ran out of fuel during the return flight to India over the Bay of Bengal and were forced to ditch." 1) link "ditch", as above 2) Suggest 'two B-29s ran out of fuel over the Bay of Bengal during the return flight to India and were forced to ditch.'
  • "An airfield capable of accommodating B-29s was prepared to support the planned raids on Palembang. In March 1944, work began to modify four airfields on Ceylon to the standards needed for B-29s". 1) Chronologically that reads badly with "was prepared" in the first sentence and "work began" in the second 2) "An airfield capable of accommodating B-29s was prepared"; "to modify four airfields on Ceylon to the standards needed for B-29s"'
  • "but in April it was decided to concentrate on China Bay when it became apparent that both could not be completed in time." Maybe 'but in April, when it became apparent that both could not be completed in time, it was decided toconcentrate on China Bay'?
  • "Wolfe noted that it would not be possible to do so until the airfield at China Bay was ready on 15 July." Are there words missing? Maybe something like ', which it was expected to be by 15 July' on the end?
  • "By mid-July China Bay was capable of accommodating 56 B-29s but required some further work." I am not sure that a reader (eg this one) will appreciate whatever the difference is between "was capable of accommodating 56 B-29s" and "but required some further work". Could it be unpacked a little?
  • "In January 1944 the 9th Air Division was established as part of efforts to strengthen Sumatra's air defenses." I am unclear where this formation fits into the Palembang Air Defense Headquarters the Palembang Defense Unit; or whether it doesn't.
  • "While one of the aircraft returned to base 40 minutes into its flight". Picky point: is it known whether it turned back after 40 minutes or arrived back after 40 minutes?
  • Is it known what height the aircraft attacking the refinery bombed from?

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those all look good. I thoroughly enjoyed reading that. Supporting


Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:B-29_targets_from_India.png: there's a date on the map itself which doesn't seem to match up with what's on the image description page?
  • File:COLLECTIE_TROPENMUSEUM_Gezicht_op_Pladjoe_B.P.M_TMnr_10006848.jpg: licensing doesn't match up with what's at the source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting development! This was one of the images donated by the Tropenmuseum as part of its donation to Commons (from memory, this was one of the first large-scale donations to Commons a major cultural institution). While it looks like the Tropenmuseum's policies for images in its own database have moved on, I'm reluctant to change the terms on Commons from that in place at the time this donation was made. Thanks as always for your careful review. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

I'll take a look at this later. Might claim points for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 18:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Infrastructure works were undertaken Ceylon to support the planned raids on Palembang" - You seem to be missing a word in here, probably between undertaken and Ceylon
  • "They may have also each included a machine cannon battery and a searchlight battery" - My knowledge of cannon is largely limited to those used in the War Between the States/ACW (whatever you want to call it), so I may be off base here. I'd recommend linking machine cannon
  • You use both South East Asia and South-East Asia in various parts of the article; be consistent with this
  • I think the source " Japanese Monograph No. 45 : History of Imperial General Headquarters Army Section" has an OCLC that can be added. This worldcat entry seems to be referring to the same thing, but I'd say you're more familiar with the source and can puzzle out if it's the right thing.
  • In the infobox, you refer to the hit building as damaged, but the prose says destroyed. Since damaged and destroyed have slightly different connotations, it's probably best to only use one for clearness' sake.

Good work. That's about all I can find. Hog Farm Bacon 21:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

edit
  • The article heavily relies on official US sources, but it seems that's all that is available on the subject.
  • Sources meet the minimum standard for reliability.
  • No source checks done (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this. Craven and Cate's The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki is a volume in an official history series. Per the norms for official history works, the USAF wouldn't have had any influence over their conclusions. I'm not aware of any concerns over the book among historians, who tend to rely on it in other works on the B-29 campaigns. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Nick, here is a non-Milhist-member review...

That's about all the questions / suggestions I could find. JennyOz (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick, glad I read this and am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2020 (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/Operation_Boomerang/archive1&oldid=980519690"