Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Boomerang

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Boomerang

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/Operation Boomerang/archive1

Operation Boomerang was a partially successful raid conducted by USAAF B-29 Superfortress heavy bombers on oil facilities in the Dutch East Indies in August 1944. It was the result of debates during the planning process for Operation Matterhorn, the extraordinary strategic bombing campaign waged against Japan by aircraft 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.

I developed this article to GA class in 2018, and have recently been able to expand it with a new source. The literature on this topic is somewhat thin at times (no details on what the Japanese aircraft involved were, for instance), but I think that the current state of the article is comprehensive and hopefully of A-class status. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from AustralianRupert: G'day, Nick, nice work -- I have a few minor suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mines to block a river --> "lay mines"?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
work began on modifying four --> "work began to modify four"?
- Yep - done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Command sought to have --> "The command..."
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"favourable" --> " favorable"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XX Bomber Command staff would have liked to have cancelled the mission --> "XX Bomber Command staff wanted to cancel the mission"?
- Much better thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the Air Defense Regiments was --> "Each air defense regiment was..."?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
slightly inconsistent "101st Machine Cannon Battalion" v. "101st Machine Gun Cannon"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the accuracy of this attack was considered "excellent": suggest stating who considered it excellent
- A USAAF report - tweeked Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
able to send a SOS signal --> "able to send an SOS signal"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
indicated that only a single building --> "single small building" (from the lead)
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
B-29s were subsequently frequently used --> "Subsequently, B-29s were frequently used"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Fleet is overlinked in the Aftermath section
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ext links all work, there are no dab links (no action required)
images all have alt text and appear to be correctly licenced to me (no action required)
in the Works consulted section, suggest adding endashes to the titles for Fuller, Mann and Rohwer
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in the Works consulted section, is there an OCLC for the Japanese monograph?
- There doesn't seem to be. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, thanks for checking. I've added my support above, but have one minor follow up query (please see below). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
one last thing, 56 B-29s from the 444th and 468th Bombardment Groups arrived at RAF China Bay --> I'm not sure if it has been clarified where they originally flew from? (I may have missed this, though). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- From their main bases in Bengal - added Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free. b uidhe 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass

The other sources look OK, but what makes combinedfleet.com a RS? b uidhe 01:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Its publishers and writers include well regarded historians, and the website is frequently referenced in history books: [1]. Thanks for these checks. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure about that. When I checked your Google books results, the first two appeared to be self-published and the third a "dramaticised" account. The author [2] might just squeak by on WP:SPS, so I'm going to pass the review, but strongly recommend supplementing with a more reliable source or removing. b uidhe 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - An article from the site is in this book published by the Naval Institute Press, which is a top-tier publisher of military history works so I think it's fine. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No source checks done. b uidhe 07:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Japanese-occupied cities in South East Asia Little bit misleading to use South East Asia while the infobox uses Dutch East Indies?
- I've added a bit to the aftermath section explaining this. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
dispatched from an airfield in Ceylon on 10 August Ceylon is a MOS:EGG I recommend to link it to British Ceylon.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In what kinda English style is this written? I saw the words "center", "percent", "travelling", "favourable", "cancelled" and "antiaircraft"?
- US English - this should be fixed now Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
first combat mission against Bangkok on 5 June 1944 Don't think we should link Bangkok here. The CNN, not that long ago published an article which states that Bangkok the second most visited city in the world is not that far from Hong Kong and has far more than London has.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These raids were to be staged through airfields in Ceylon Same as above with Ceylon.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
USAAF and Royal Air Force personnel Add here British.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
with only a ton of bombs Does "ton" here mean "a lot" or as in a unit? If it is a unit which one then and add a convert.
- Clarified Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
101st, 102nd and 103rd Air Defense Regiments and the 101st Machine Cannon Battalion No links?
- Linked Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
was equipped with 20 Type 88 75 mm AA guns Is it possible to avoid two separate numbers next to each other?
- Not sure how given that Type 88 75 mm AA gun is the name of the guns - Japanese WW2-era designations are pretty clunky to English-speaking eyes. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The strike force began to take off from China Bay at 4:45 PM on 10 August I don't which English you use but Ngram uses p.m. more than capitalised. [3].
- I should probably get MOS:TIME tattooed onto one of my arms, as I always mess this up. Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
from China Bay to Siberoet island Isn't island part of the proper noun here?
- Seems not - our article is at Siberut Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
were able to send a SOS signal Typo article?
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
undertaken on the night of 10 August Night of 9/10 or 10/11?
- 10/11 August - fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
attacked by the Royal Navy in January 1945 in one of the images; maybe add British here.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Nice job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for these comments, and sorry for my slow response. I think that the comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Hallo Nick, you just missed a "travelling" but I've fixed it for you. BTW, I see a lot of anti-aircraft and antiaircraft; Ngram tells us that "antiaircraft" more common is in American English. If you've fixed this small issue, I can give you a support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Oops, missed that - fixed. Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, here's my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

"and lay mines to block a river". Picky and optional: is there a more precise word than "block"? 'Interdict'; 'blockade'?
- That's a good point - "Interdict" seems the best choice here. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. And that petty point is all I could find. An impressive article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.