Talk:Fall of Singapore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this a lengthy article, I'll be reviewing it in sections

I've reviewed the images used and have added the appropriate tags as necessary; one image has been nominated for deletion as it lacks enough info to determine its copyright status.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

@Nigos: This article is a good read! Feel free to ask me anything if you need it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the article to follow the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The article has many sections which has a main corresponding article, which is good, so moving excess amount of information there would be really helpful. For example:

During 1940 and 1941, the Allies imposed a trade embargo on Japan in response to its campaigns in China and its occupation of French Indochina. The basic plan for taking Singapore was worked out in July 1940. Intelligence gained in late 1940 – early 1941 did not alter that plan but confirmed it in the minds of Japanese decision makers...

can be shorten to:

In July 1940, the Japanese devised a basic plan for invading Singapore, confirmed by intellegence gained around 1940 and 1941. Coincide this is a trade embargo imposed by the Allies, citing its invasion in China and French Indochina as the embargo's rationale... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those two don't really have the same meaning though... "coincide" means "at the same time" and does not imply cause-and-effect. Nigos (talk | contribs) 10:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

There is a lot more in terms of the pre- and post-1992 British vs. Australian historical argument over the fall of Singapore that should at least be touched upon at GA, not just Wavell's report and Coates' response. For example, the 1957 first volume of The War Against Japan by Kirby and Owen's 1960 The Fall of Singapore and Hall's 1983 The Fall of Singapore. There are also Thompson's 2010 Battle of Singapore, Farrell's 2005 The Defence and Fall of Singapore, and Farrell and Hunter's 2010 A Great Betrayal: The Fall of Singapore Revisited. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

I do not mean to intrude on the GAR here, and I think the article is extremely well written. I think, however, that there are a few additional issues which ought to be covered in this article:

What "was" Singapore? A reader may well not know about Singapore's importance as a port and even its status as a British colonial territory. How many people lived there? Why was it economically and strategically important? Did it have defences?
- You needn't go too deep into these questions, IMO. A short paragraph explaining its importance as the main British naval base in SE Asia, and why it mattered to the British, etc., should suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A map showing its location relative to British Malaya, NEI, India/Burma etc. may be helpful for those, like me, without an instinctive understanding of regional geography.
- Definitely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did (many) British officials believe Singapore to be impregnable? At the moment, the discussion in the "Outbreak of War" section implies that the weakness of the city's defenses were widely accepted - but this is not the case and Daniel Todman's Britain's War has a lengthy discussion on Churchill's sincere personal belief in the impregnability of Fortress Singapore and the ways in which this belief could spread by omission in official reports.
I wonder whether the Sook Ching massacre should have a section of its own, especially give the fact that the Alexandra Hospital massacre does receive one.
- While not that didn't happen during the battle like the Alexandra Hospital massacre did, it follows closely enough after the battle that it could stand some coverage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, the "Analysis" section needs more focus on the implications for British colonial regime and anti-colonial nationalism in South-East Asia. Lee Kuan Yew's views that the speed of the British collapse ("In 70 days of surprises, upsets and stupidities, British colonial society was shattered, and with it all the assumptions of the Englishman's superiority.") is widely quoted in the studies I have seen, eg. Bayly and Harper's Forgotten Armies (this is a key text which should be cited, I believe).
- Agreed. A sentence about how the surrenders of Singapore and Hong Kong destroyed the myth of British invincibility is needed for the lede as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above are only a suggestions, of course. Happy to discuss if helpful. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get to work on this once I have the time to do so, presumably on the weekends. Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nigos:. I have a few books and am happy to help if I can. I cannot claim any particular specialist knowledge though, unfortunately. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the Japanese had any special training for jungle warfare before the Malayan campaign, but they did had recent combat experience, unlike the Allied units.
Not sure that I'd call the Buffalo obsolete as they were only a year or two old. They were definitely inferior to the Japanese Ki-43 fighters.
Link battleship, battlecruiser and move the link to Johor to its first use. Down to Prelude, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've got a bunch more reading to do. Would you prefer for me to close this now so you don't feel like there's any sort of deadline, or to leave it open for a few more weeks? I'm fine either way; if you decide that you'd prefer it closed, leave me a message and I'll start a new review once you renominate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be busy for a while, I guess I'd prefer if this was closed for now and then I can get to work on it. Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And remember to ping me whenever you're ready to renominate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]