Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Inmate

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 Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Inmate

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/Operation Inmate/archive1

This article covers an unusual operation conducted by the British Pacific Fleet in June 1945. It involved attacks by a British aircraft carrier and four cruisers against an isolated Japanese base in the central Pacific, with the main goal being to provide the ships involved with combat experience. This proved successful, though the cruiser bombardment was farcical and the Allied losses which were considered acceptable by 1945 standards would be a scandal today. Overall, the article provides what I hope is an interesting snapshot of how the British Pacific Fleet operated.

The article passed a GA review in November 2016. I have since expanded and copy edited it, and hope that it now meets the A-class criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC) I reviewed this article for GA in November, and have reviewed the changes made since. I have made a couple of minor tweaks to prose, and consider that it meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those changes and your review. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for your check. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made a few minor tweaks here, all minor stuff, ut feel fre t revert any of them you don't agree with. The only possible edit I shied away from was removing the hyphen from "lightly-defended", as I think the MoS says not to hyphenate ~ly constructions (no idea on the logic on that, but when was the MoS ever logical...!) All the best, The Bounder (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for those changes, I agree that that hyphen wasn't needed and have removed it. Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~
Do we not know the Japanese commander's name? According to Structure_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_forces_in_the_South_Pacific_Mandate#Truk_Island_Unit, it was LTG Shunsaburo Mugikura, which is confirmed here.
- I'm surprised that I didn't think to consult Rottman, who's one of the go-to references for just about everything related to the Pacific War. I've added these details. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, can we get some details on the Japanese situation in 1945? Even if detailed information isn't available, something along the lines of what's presented in the above link would be useful to get a sense of the size of the force garrisoned in the islands.
- As above, I've drawn on the unfortunately scratchy coverage to describe the defences in more detail. Thanks for suggesting this. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The line "A book published to mark the 50th anniversary..." - why not just give the name of the book? Parsecboy (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically as I prefer to alert readers to the purpose of the book here: judgements like this from anniversary histories need to be treated with a degree of caution, though all the authors of this work were professionals and it was edited by a reputable historian. Also, the name of the book is lengthy!
- @Parsecboy: sorry for the slow response here: I was out of town and missed your review until today. I think that I may have now addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a problem at all - I'm certainly not always the fastest on replying to things ;) Parsecboy (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

Link aircraft carrier, cruiser, destroyer, air strike, atoll, Australia, Pacific War, oil tank, rocket on first use.
- I've linked most of those, but left out atoll as the geography is explained in the linked Chuuk Lagoon article and Australia, oil tank and rocket as they're common terms/concepts. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it hard to overestimate American geographic illiteracy, but I tend to error more on the side of caution than many regarding links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd rather not, as I'd be asked to remove these links if the article went to FAC per WP:OLINK. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Inmate was a British Pacific Fleet attack Perhaps "Operation Inmate was an attack by British Pacific Fleet"...? Suggestion only.
- Done Nick-D (talk)
Implacable is linked in the lede and in the first para of the Background section. Delete the second link as it's quite close to the first one.
- Done Nick-D (talk)
number of small calibre anti-aircraft hyphenate small calibre
- Not sure about the rules of grammar here, but two hyphenated terms next to each other ("small-calibre anti-aircraft") looks awkward. Nick-D (talk)
  - Grammar says yes as they're both compound adjectives, but perhaps you could abbreviate AA guns?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, done Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
British Official historian decapitalize official
Fix the title in Smith.
- Well spotted! Fixed Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Should this raid be added to the Pacific War template? Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has done so, but I'm not so keen on it. This was a small-scale operation, and one of many such raids conducted for training purposes against Truk. Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your reasoning, but I think that these sorts of ops should be included in a campaignbox or the like for easy access.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, my underlying concern is that ever since someone smooshed all the Pacific War infoboxes together the thing has been a monstrosity. Anyway, it's there at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2017 (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.