Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South China Sea raid/archive1

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2018 [1].

South China Sea raid

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The South China Sea raid was among the most successful aircraft carrier operations of World War II. In mid January 1945 the US Navy's main strike force, the Third Fleet, ran riot in the sea. While its primary target was two Japanese battleships wrongly believed to be in the area, the Third Fleet's carriers conducted a series of devastating attacks on Japanese convoys, ports and airfields. The Americans didn't have it all their own way though, as a raid on Hong Kong ended in failure and the US Government had to pay reparations to Portugal for attacking Macau. The end result though was a significant American victory.

Despite the importance of this operation, we didn't have an article on it until I started it in December 2016. The article was assessed as GA class in February 2017, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in October. I have since expanded the article, including by drawing on sources I spotted during a recent trip to Hong Kong, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this nomination and comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

Should these be archived:

"Remains of US airmen killed..."
Craven, Wesley... The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki
Spector, Ronald... Advice and Support Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the policy is, but the second two are references to hard copy books published online at highly stable URLs so I'd rather not. The links are all OK at present. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert

Sorry, just a quick note at this stage (will try to come back later, it is late here):

"File:1945-01-15JapWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg": I wonder if the caption should clarify what the red area indicates? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just made this change. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"meeting at Ulithi": perhaps clarify where this is here? For instance, maybe this might work "meeting at Ulithi, in the Caroline Islands"?
- Done (I tend to forget that the totally obscure islands and inlets used as fleet bases during the war aren't common knowledge to normal people!) Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some of this probably could be tightened: "was reduced to a strength of six..." --> "was reduced to six..."
- Done Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"authorised" --> "authorized" (three instances)
- oops: fixed
"launched at 7.32 am", per MOS:TIME the full stop should probably be a colon
- One day I'm going to nominate an article for FAC which is actually consistent with MOS:NUM. Not this time though! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the Citations, # 9 "Dommen" should have an endash
- Well spotted! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the Works consulted section, is there an ISSN that could be added for the Bailey ref?
- It doesn't seem to have an ISSN, but I've added a stable jstor link as the next best thing. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the Works consulted section, "Allied Intelligence and Indochina, 1943-1945": probably should have an endash
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the Further reading section, the CNO source probably needs a location of publication and an OCLC number (if possible)
- I've added the location. It's in Worldcat, but it seems to be taking the day off so I can't see the OCLC. I'll add it when Worldcat is up and running again. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, Nick, thanks for your efforts. I reviewed this at MILHIST ACR and having reviewed the changes since then, am happy to support it for FA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the strategic situation map. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the review Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot Dank Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Except for one minor format point which I fixed myself, all sources are in regular order and look to be of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at A class, and believe that it meets our FAC standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting article and one that, from a prose point of view, meets the FAC criteria. One query: this seems to be about a US action, but the date is in a non-US format. Is there a reason for that? (I don't press the matter either way, and leave the choice to your discretion). As I'm not an expert in this area, I'll leave a caveat to my support to cover my ignorance on subject matter. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, fixed. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  What are you doing Nick? You now have a mix of US military format (DDMMYY) and civilian format (MMDDYY). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I was messing about with a date format I'm unfamiliar with, forgetting that US military format is a thing and I used it quite successfully in the Battle of Morotai, Air raids on Japan, Operation Kita and probably other successful US military-focused FACs! I've reverted myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and have looked over the changes since October. The only thing I have a query about is the lack of coordination between 14th AF and the fleet. Can anything be said about the disconnect? Was it conscious, ie were they putting their main effort into different things, or was it just a case of left-hand/right-hand? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say why, unfortunately. The official USAAF history covers the topic slightly, noting that the pre-invasion planning the 14th Air Force participated in specified that the Third Fleet would remain to the north of Luzon. As I understand it, the security arrangements for US units located in China was considered unsatisfactory, so that might explain why the 14th Air Force wasn't briefed. Inter service rivalry and communications problems also wouldn't have helped. I've added a bit more material placing this in context. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.