Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 04:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Matarisvan (talk · contribs) 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, I will review this nomination. It's a shame this review was not picked up for so long. I will try to get it completed within a reasonable amount of time. Matarisvan (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan Hey were are we with this review? IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense, my apologies, I haven't been able to start yet. I hope to get the review finished by the end of this month. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, I did a prose review and made some copy edits myself. I hope those are ok with you. I will post my comments on the prose soon, there are just a few. Also, the images don't have alt texts, would it be ok if I added these? Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, my comments on the prose:

• “The JWPC also considered targeting,”: Targeting what?

  "Targeting" is the process of selecting a target, so the prose is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider splitting the paragraph after the 58th Bombardment Wing table? It is too long.

  Y Browser artefact. Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any photograph of any of Saunders, Wolfe, Arnold, Carmichael et al. together? I think it could be added in the Command section, near the long paragraph.

  I don't have one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Yawata sections, why do we write “Yawata” when all the links and the table point to “Yahata”?

  Y The location is known as both "Yawata" and "Yahata" in English. I chose to use the first spelling since the steel works uses that in its English-language materials and is the form used in the sources and the Featured Article Bombing of Yawata (June 1944), although there is also a Bombing of Yahata. Standardised on "Yawata" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Any assessments for the damage inflicted during the following missions: Sasebo, Omura 1, Malegon, Singapore Docks, Omura 2 and 3, Mukden 1 and 2, and Shinchiku?

  Y In most cases because no damage was observed. Added information about each raid's damage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We say the second bridge targeted was the Rama VII in the body, but in the Combat missions table, we say the Rama VI bridge was targeted twice, and Rama VII was not. Which one do we mean?

  Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For the assessment section, did no survey find the lack of training and the last moment changing of targets reasons for the meagre results of Matterhorn?

  The sources don't say that, but I don't disagree with you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #47 uses pp. for a single page.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #114 uses p. for multiple pages.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In the bibliography, link to Ray S. Cline?

  Y Gosh, I did not know about him. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Location of publication needed for Haulman 1999, Romanus and Sunderland 1956.

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In Li 2020, I think we don’t need the “Private Limited” in the publisher name.

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, looks good. Here goes the review of the image licenses:

• The Cairo Conference group photo requires a copyright tag. I think PD-70 should suffice.

  It already has a copyright tag: PD-AustraliaGov. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Showa factory photo needs a source and the exact date or year it was published.

  Being a postcard, it was published when it was produced, and since the steelworks was dismantled by the Russians in 1945, it must have been before then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For the Hankou bombing photo, the qq.com link should be removed and the archives,gov link should be moved to first.

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing for all the other images is ok. Would it be alright if I added the alt texts myself? Cheers

Sure. No problem. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, I have added alt texts for all the images. As QPQ, you please add your comments to the Northrop YF-23 and Felice Beato FARs? Both have been open for a long time and your comments as a MILHIST veteran would help closing them. My comments on the source review:

• Is World War II on Deadline a reliable source? Any reviews or publishing history of the author which can support its case?

  Y Meh. Not needed, so removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Royal Collins Publishers reliable? Any reviews of their book cited here, Li 2020?

  Royal Collins is an academic book publisher based in Montreal, Canada [1]. There were some reviews [2][3] The book has been used as a reference by other recent works. [4][5] Apparent he wrote a three-volume work on the Superforts in Chinese. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reviews of Schwabe 2015 and Mays 2016?

  Schwabe: [6] used by [7][8]

  Mays is a professor at the Citadel in Charleston, SC. I cannot locate a review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the first link in the External links necessary? The other 3 are alright.

  Y Deleted. I thought the training film on how to takeoff in a B-29 was awesome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder for reviewer just in case. Setergh (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, there are ~220 refs and I will review 5% of them, that is 11 refs. Spot checks:

• #2: ok.
• #9: ok.
• #37, #38: ok.
• #40: ok.
• #79, #80: Both links to the National Archive don’t load.
• #82: The original link to the RAF Watton Wes site returns a 404 not found. It has also not been archived well on archive.org, all 5 captures don’t load. You will have to replace this ref.
• #115: ok.
• #117: ok.
• #168: ok.
• Consider adding URL-access=registration to the two Times Machine sources we have used?

That’s all on the source review. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 79 and 80 both load for me. Ref 82 also loads, both the first and last captures are okay. Added |URL-access=registration to the Times Machine references. As a aside: in statistical sampling, it is the number of samples, not the percentage of the population that is important. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, everything looks good then. Promoting to GA. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]