Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore strategy/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 GrahamColm 12:51, 6 May 2012 [1].

Singapore strategy

Singapore strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Singapore strategy/archive1

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual military article on a war plan rather than an actual war or battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Colonel the Master of Sempill": "Colonel" sounds odd before "the" to me; would it work to delete it?
  • It is correct. See The Highland peer who prepared Japan for war - Telegraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I linked the whole phrase; if anyone wants to argue that that's not enough, I'm listening. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, Hawkeye reverted; anyone have thoughts on how we make this indigestible phrase digestible? - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand the problem. Military ranks always come first, and are attached to the holder's title rather than name. Then we have the title, which is the Master of Sempill. See Forms of address in the United Kingdom#Heirs-apparent and heirs-presumptive of Scottish peers Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the problem will be clear enough if I ask for input from Americans at WT:MIL; is that acceptable? (I'll just ask them if anything sounds wrong to them in that paragraph, so as not to bias the result.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, the new wording (..., a colonel) works. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand this. The style guide says <rank> <name>. Why do we have to say David Petreus, a general? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article uses British English; it can't be helped if the correct form "sounds odd" to Americans, as much American phrasing does to Brits. It should be changed back. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Brebner: formatting
  • done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Check for wikilinking consistency in References
  • done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent in how multi-author/editor works are notated
  • Should be. The templates have been used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't need retrieval dates for Google Books, but if you're going to include them you should do so consistently
  • done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:British_Empire_1921.png: on what source(s) was this image based?
  • No idea. I can provide a source to back it up if you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Queen_Mary_in_Singapore_Gaving_Dock_Aug_1940.jpg: "When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published"
  • The image is in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Avro_Vulcan_Malaysia.jpg: can you demonstrate that the government holds the copyright to this image?
  • The AWM says it doesn't. I've removed the pic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:British_Empire_1897.jpg: see this conversation arising from the British Empire FAR. Basically, the cited source claims to have got the image either from Wikipedia or from Commons, and we weren't able to find the original source or verify copyright status. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Hey Hawkeye7, templates such as {{done}} are generally discouraged at FAC, as most slow down the page load time. Good luck! Auree ^★★ 01:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Forgot about that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Interesting read, just several comments Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Reads fairly complete to myself, a layperson when it comes to military history. Grammar seems fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nigel Ish

• In the Origins section - the US was not a former ally - it was a "co-belligerant" in the First World War. Japan was a former ally, and it may be worthwhile discussing the nature of the end of the Anglo-Japanese treaty more. In addition, there probably should be more on the consequences of the Washington Treaty on the allowable defences for Singapore.
  • Removed the bit about Allies (see above). Added that the Singapore was specifically excluded under the Washington Naval Treaty. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Should there be a mention of the Automedon affair in the outcomes section? The effective admission that the Singapore Strategy was unworkable, and the capture by the Germans and subsequent transmission to the Japanese of these plans (and the failure of the British to tell anybody that these plans had been captured) seems relevant.
  • Will do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I will confess that I had never heard of it. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The discussion on post war plans for basing of nuclear weapons at Singapore seems of limited relevance to the rest of the article and seems incomplete - it mentions plans, but not whether or how they were implemented. British nuclear weapons were based at Singapore, as were nuclear-capable Canberra bombers, and there were regular detachments of V-bombers, particularly during the confrontation. This bit should either be expanded or removed.
  • Another editor wanted it included. I will improve it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a bit more. Did not want to devote too much space to it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article enerally seems a bit bitty at the moment - and the last point is tending to persuade me to oppose at the moment.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As FAC is apparently now a paid process I am striking my comments to avoid any accusations of corruption and want nothing more to do with FAC.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kirk

• I've reviewed this twice already so maybe I'm biased but I think its a pretty impressive article.
• The article is pretty long; specifically I think the Origins section could be more succinct.
  • The second sentence of the lead should be more clearly stated within the origins section somehow (maybe as a conclusion in the last paragraph).
    • I've added it a a paragraph at the front of the origins section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relative strength of the US Navy vs. the Royal Navy is complicated to measure since it could be compared in multiple ways: total ship tonnage, personnel and capital ship tonnage. In the pre-war period, The Royal Navy was ahead of the US Navy in total tonnage (but not by much), the US Navy definitely was ahead of the Royal Navy multiple times for the second in personnel, and capital ship tonnage was theoretically equal in the third while the treaties were in force (then it was also all over the place). I don't think this is the article to argue the 'largest' but you probably cite this (5th paragraph) with which measurement you are comparing.
    • That's not true. Personnel between the wars was comparable:

NB: excludes Marines and Coast Guard in both cases. USN source: [2] RN source: [3]

• • • I don't think I was clear above (nice table btw): Throughout the 1920s, the Royal Navy therefore remained the world's largest navy but according to that table only in 1920 and 1922 the Royal Navy was bigger than the US Navy in terms of personnel; I assume the source you used meant total tonnage so I would add a citation to the fact and note the metric. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third sentence of the 2nd paragraph I would remove the fluff and merge it with the remainder of the paragraph e.g. (Rising tensions over the US Navy's building program led to the Admiralty developing a "one-power standard", under which the policy was to maintain a navy "not ... inferior in strength to the Navy of any other power" that became official when it was publicly announced at the 1921 Imperial Conference.)
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph seems off topic; the important bit is that the US wasn't considered a threat but I think that's a sentence or two not a paragraph.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 5th paragraph I'm not clear what the 10 year rule has to do with the Singapore strategy; if you delete those two sentences its pretty good (other than my concern about the 'largest' navy). Similar problem with 6th paragraph, you could probably merge these paragraphs.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Other than that, way down in the Second World War section the sentence starting "At this time there were only two battleships..." seemed superfluous - The Admiralty considered sending capital ships to Singapore, there were 7 available but the one they considered sending was sunk. (and none of the ships in your list were Revenge-Class) Why no Aircraft Carriers?
  • Tracking the ships gets complicated. Trimmed per your suggestion, added a bit about the aircraft carrier. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my note below, I would probably say at the beginning of that the section the Eagle was based at Singapore until the DoW with Italy when it was moved to the Med. Also, I replaced 'old' with 'small' since I think that's the more important problem with Eagle. Finally, there's a disconnect between the paragraph (re-)sending Eagle vs. the next sending Indomitable, which didn't make it in time to join force-Z but was active in the theater before the fall of Singapore. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty sure there was a Far East fleet which was quickly recalled to the Mediterranean in 1939, maybe you should mention that (or did and I missed it)?
  • What I was thinking was at the outbreak of World War II the aircraft carrier HMS Eagle was on the East India Station and eventually went to the Mediterranean fleet after the declaration of war by Italy. Kirk (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the independence of Singapore is worth mentioning a little more explicitly (its obliquely in the last paragraph of the Fall of Singapore section). Kirk (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a couple more things, in addition...
• It seems to me the picture(s) of the Singapore docks would be a better choice for the infobox or the 15" gun than the current pic. Kirk (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Les3corbiers

(I am a French contributor and I am currently translating this article)

• The introduction says "British naval planners did not expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" but it is written "British naval planners did expect that the Japanese would willingly fight" in the Plans section. Which one is correct ?
  • "British naval planners did not expect that the Japanese would willingly fight". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Last paragraph of the Plans section : "In the event of a worst-case scenario [...] two approaches were considered". I do not find the second approach.
  • there are two. Re-worded to make this explicit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fr:Utilisateur:Les3corbiers (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Merci beaucoup pour votre critique Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Do you know the name of the warship in the Admiralty IX Dock on the picture in section Plans?
  • No. I searched through the series of photographs, but none of them say. I think it is a case of wartime censorship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Which type is the 15 inch coastal gun shown on the picture in Base development and when was it made?
  • The type is in the article. I tracked down the manufacturing dates for the guns as being between 1903 and 1919. I also dug up some information on the fate of the guns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Which of the people on the surrender picture in Fall of Singapore is Percival? Are there any other known officers on the picture? What is the name and rank of the japanese officer in the center of the picture? If this is not known, the picture caption should point on him as not being part of the british forces.
  • Left to Right: Major Cyril Wild (carrying white flag) interpreter; Brigadier T. K. Newbigging (carrying the Union flag) Chief Administrative Officer, Malaya Command; Lieutenant Colonel Ichiji Sugita; Brigadier K. S. Torrance, Brigadier General Staff Malaya Command; Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, General Officer Commanding, Malaya Command. Sugita participated in the Battle of Wake Island, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, and the Battle of Leyte, and was present on the USS Missouri during the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay. After the war he translated Japanese Army reports for the Allied historians. I think he later became Chief of the Ground Staff of the JSDF. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Bomzibar (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- No simple undertaking, this subject, so well done. Reviewed/passed for GA and reviewed/supported for MilHist A-Class and both times the article has been developed subsequently, so re-read it from top to bottom rather than going through diffs of changes. Specifically:

• Coverage, referencing, supporting materials, and prose look good -- I just copyedited a couple of things this time round.
• Structure-wise, article development and sectioning seem logical; I'd prefer to see more than just the word "Australia" as a heading but admittedly not sure of the best alternative ("Australian attitudes"? Perhaps you can think of something -- not a showstopper in any case).
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Spotcheck-wise, I'm happy to give you a bye on this one in light of the one I did for Truman's Relief of General MacArthur in January but of course can't speak for the other delegates, who'll be responsible for closing this at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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