Talk:Allied prisoners of war of Japan

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 537 past nominations.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • :Hi! I'll be reviewing this.
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article new enough and long enough. Hook is sourced to a book, and seems reliable. No recent edit wars, so article is stable. Hook is neutral (and quite interesting, if I may add). No picture is used, no plagiarism from what Earwig found, two QPQs are done. Easy pass, good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

This article seems mistitled given that most of the Allied POWs were held outside of Japan. I'd suggest changing it to Allied prisoners of war of Japan or similar. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D Fine with me, WP:BEBOLD and move if you'd like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nick-D (talk) 06:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Allied prisoners of war of Japan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 01:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66. I hope you are doing well. Can you please finish this review? Fade258 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Fade258 The article was passed few weeks ago, although without any comment here, yes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Fade258 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: You don't seem to have done anything to fix the issues that I raised so long ago. Do you want to proceed or should I just fail it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 Like I said in the other review, I missed the fact that you started it while I was waiting for you to finish the other one (please ping me in the future, TIA). I'll try to catch up and address the issues here over the next few days, feel free to continue the review at your leisure, I will address all comments you make. What I see above looks like it won't take much. Thanks again. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 Caught up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:

Noted. Will work on this in few days, around XMAS; right now I am in the middle of end-semester grading, so all large wiki projects are on hold. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, that'll give me time for the spotchecks as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All .pdfs and journal articles need page numbers
  • This is confusing: [8]: 512 : 31–32  If these are all page numbers, none of them relate to the interpretation of Bushido changing.
  • Only the cite to page 301 for cite #8 is valid, which tells me that the problem is not any difference in edition
  • Spot checked [16]: 57, 222; [16]: 180–185, 192–193; [16]: 169, 200; [26]: 4; [23]: 133
  • Cannot spot check cite 3 because it lacks page numbers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have figured out part of the problem with [8]. In one of my first edits, [1], I must have copied it from [2], AGFing that it supports the claim made (which in fact it doesn't...). Compunding that mistake, few edits later, in [3], some copypaste error spread this ref to other places. I've fixed one. The other one came from me copying content from [4], where Toland's book [8] is referenced with pages 23-34. Of course, double sigh, that also failed verification once I checked it, although I was able to verify it with that source on page 5. But, seriously, the amount of erros in our referencing is terrible, I really need to stop AGFing anything I find on our pages. Aaaargh. I will fix other issues you mention in the near future. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:15, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Road to FA or further improvement

I just new realized Polish Wikipedia has a pretty decent Good Article on it as well (the interwikis weren't connected until recently): pl:Jeńcy alianccy w niewoli japońskiej. It would be good to compare the articles and see what they can complement to one another. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allied_prisoners_of_war_in_Japan