Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/United States war plans (1945–1950)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

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 Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

United States war plans (1945–1950)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

United States war plans (1945–1950) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is a new article, one that has been on my mind for some time. Some articles referenced the war plans of this period, but there was nothing on them. Put simply, the American planners were unable to come up with anything practical, but the work done was not wasted; what was fantastic in the 1940s would ultimately become very real in the 1950s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

Surprised that there hasn't been more interest in this article. I'd like to offer the following comments:

When the article ran on DYK, it got 12,000 views, which is an order of magnitude more than the average for a non-lead article. The hook chosen was about the nuclear attack plan. Frankly, I didn't think much of the hook; I was sure that most Americans would note that a single Trident submarine has more nuclear warheads and could cause more devastation today. There was no feedback though, so I am unsure what they thought of the article. Clearly the subject is of little interest here on MilHist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the plans called for rather dramatic Allied retreats (from the Elbe to Spain!), I'd suggest that the background section discuss the run down state of the western armies following the war.
    checkY Added a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " These bombers were the mainstay of the strategic bomber force in the late 1940s, but were vulnerable, lacked range" - this needs to be nuanced. The B-29s suffered only modest losses against Japan and were the longest-range bombers in service at the time.
    checkY The nuance is in the text, so trimmed the caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the Western European Union?
    checkY Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'outcome' section could note the post-Cold War assessments of the Soviet situation in this period. As I understand it, the Soviet economy was near collapse and as a result there was little likelihood of the USSR mounting a major offensive.
    checkY Expanded on this a little. The planners always focused on capabilities rather than intentions. The state of US forces in the period might come as a shock to modern readers who grew up in an era when the US and NATO were powerful forces. The reader of the article though, is far better informed than the public at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. For anyone considering reviewing here, I'd highly recommend doing so as it's a very interesting article. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

edit

Looks interesting. There's another article above this one on my reviewing list, but I'll get to it fairly soon. Hog Farm Bacon 18:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pincher
Broiler
Outcome

Very good work. Not much to gripe about here at all. Hog Farm Bacon 03:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jr8825 (comments in progress)

edit
  • I suggest adding the date of each plan to the section headers to make the chronology clearer & more accessible. e.g. Pincher (1946); Broiler (1947).
    checkY Done. Nowhere near as simple as it sounds, The problem here is that the sections are used by redirects. Added anchors to preserve this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...while the Army would release another 2 million under a points system." I presume this means releasing 2 million from active duty, but could be read as releasing 2 million from the conflict in the Pacific to occupation duty in Europe. Perhaps a slight reword ("while the Army would release another 2 million from duty under a points system") can clarify this?
    checkY Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825 • Talk 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hawkeye7: I've copy-edited up to the end of Broiler and fixed a handful of grammatical issues. I've run out of time to work further through the article today, but I'll try look at the rest tomorrow. It's a good article on a very interesting topic. I really appreciate your work and I hope you'll take my following criticisms as good faith (I recognise I'm inexperienced with assessments, and would add that my judgement is based solely on my reading of the criteria, whereas I presume other editors have the experience of precedent).
  • I support the article against the A class criteria overall, although only just. I have a few reservations about A2 and A4.

With A2, I think there's a slight tendency to use excessive detail. See below for an example that stood out to me in Broiler:

Only Silverplate B-29 Superfortress bombers were capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and of the 65 that had been made, only 32 were operational at the start of 1948, all of which were assigned to the 509th Bombardment Group, which was based at Roswell Army Airfield in New Mexico. Trained crews were also in short supply; at the beginning of 1948 only six crews were qualified to fly atomic bombing missions, although enough personnel had been trained to assemble an additional fourteen in an emergency.

I don't think the detail I've struck through adds anything to the reader's understanding of US war plans 45–50. There are a few other examples of this (or information which could be simplified & condensed), but on balance I think the article still meets A2 as the majority of detail helps build a comprehensive picture of the plans.

With A4, the main issue is comma use/clause construction, which in some places affects legibility and creates ambiguity. Serial commas aren't consistently used throughout the article (MOS:SERIAL). I tried to avoid adding or removing many commas myself as I didn't want to force a specific style upon you. There appears to be some comma overuse and splicing, which I think would be easier to sort out once the serial commas are standardised. Perhaps the Guild of Copy Editors will have someone who's more qualified than me to look at this. I don't think the subject matter helps, as summing up detailed, technical plans encourages detailed, list-like prose – the hardest kind to write clearly and accurately! The writing itself is concise and mostly clear, and I don't think the article would "require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant", so it meets A4. I hope some you find some of my thoughts helpful, and would be interested to hear if you or other editors disagree/take a different view. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 00:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the clause highlighted above is that there was only one group equipped with Silverplate bombers, and it was located at only one air base. If I said that, the reader might well wonder: what group? and at what base? To take advantage of the linked structure of Wikipedia, I mentioned the actual group and base, with a link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your thought process, I now get the clause's intended purpose. I know this might sound nit-picky, but please let me break the sentence down so I can explain why it's unclear. The main reason is that the subject of the last subclause is the 509th Bombardment Group, yet the significance of the information is that it's the bombers' sole location, not that it's air group's base:
"all of which were assigned to the 509th Bombardment Group, which was based at Roswell Army Airfield in New Mexico."
Spelling out the information explicitly, then rolling together the original two clauses into one subclause, makes it easier to understand the point being made and means the subject (the bombers) stays the same:
"all of which were assigned to a single formation, the 509th Bombardment Group at Roswell Army Airfield in New Mexico."
Because it's explained that they were assigned to one group, the group's location isn't necessary information (it's nice illustrative detail, but a trade-off with brevity) & can be removed without affecting the reader's understanding:
"all of which were assigned to a single formation, the 509th Bombardment Group."
In a complex article like this, and in a sentence with 4 other clauses, my preference would be to remove this information to help text flow and reader accessibility. I recognise that A2 (the unnecessary detail bit) is a subjective judgement though, and respect your decision (as a more experienced editor and the subject expert) to include it. The problem is that when extra information is combined with complex sentence structures, especially with grammar that's anything less than perfect, the writing can't be clear and concise. There are other places in the article, besides this example, with long sentences/structure and punctuation that's not technically accurate, and because of this the rich information comes at the expense of A4 (clear, concise prose).
I'm gonna take off my grammar fascist hat now and say that the article is great, and the A-class criteria is sufficiently met. I just wanted to explain more fully why clauses like the one above are a problem and why I think the article is "only just" A-class. Milhist A-class says it should be "very close to featured article quality", and I don't think the writing/grammar in the article is "of a professional standard" (featured article criteria 1a, which I'm sure you're more familiar with than I am since you've written many and I'm just preparing to submit my first!) Jr8825 • Talk 02:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

I'll try to get to this in the morning. Hog Farm Bacon 01:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title page of the Sandia National Laboratory Source appears to suggest that the title uses the spelling Mark 4 Bomb, not Mk4 Bomb, although the latter is used frequently in the PDF text.

checkY It was the title of the PDF document. Who would have thought that they'd be different? I have corrected it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are from high-quality sources. I did a few spot checks, and everything checked out. Hog Farm Bacon 14:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all check out license-wise

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/United_States_war_plans_(1945–1950)&oldid=1141873482"