Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2019 [1].

Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The early hours of 10 March 1945 were among the worst in human history. United States Army Air Forces B-29 Superfortress bombers attacked one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, using weapons and tactics carefully designed to destroy cities. The result was the death of at least 88,000 people and the destruction a quarter of Tokyo. This was the single most devastating air raid of World War II, including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and marked the start of a campaign which left most of Japan's cities in ruins by the end of the war only a few months later.

Wikipedia didn't have an article focused on this raid until I started it early last year. The article passed a GA review in April 2018, and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in May. I have since further developed the article, including through drawing on perspectives and materials collected during a holiday to Tokyo early this year. I'm hopeful that the article now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:US Strategic Bombing of Tokyo 1944-1945.png: May want to give an exact page number; Archive.org links can have that in the URL.
- There isn't a HTML version, and the Commons record says it from page 57 of the report. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dwelling of Remembrance memorial in Yokoamicho Park October 2008.jpg: I don't like saying this but it has to be said: How does a non-free image here substantially increase the readers' understanding of the article topic?
- The issue of whether to erect an official memorial or museum is discussed in the section. The photo depicts the very generic memorial which was eventually erected, as described in the section. I think that this gives an indication of why a private group felt a need to go ahead and open their own museum when the government didn't do so. As all memorials to the raid are not covered by FoP, there isn't a free alternative. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tokyo 1945-3-10-1.jpg: Broken source link.
- I've replaced it with another photo with proper sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like every image fits to its location and there is good ALT text everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke

I'm slightly shocked to learn that this raid did not have an article until recently. So thank you for your work on this.

Can we use a (second) link to Bombing of Dresden in World War II in "Like the attack on Dresden" (in the historiography section)? I know that FA does not favor duplinks in general, but the first one is in the very beginning of the article and looks like it's for the city of Dresden, if you don't click on it. The link would add a lot of context in the historiography section. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also lose some of the "however"s throughout the article (There's ten of them)? It reads slightly argumentative. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Trimmed to six. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is great shape. I have a few comments:

it isn't clear from the narrative that the Allies had already used incendiaries against cities in Europe, as had the Axis. I think it is important to establish what both sides had done with incendiaries, not just area bombing.
- I've expanded the material on the Allied bombing campaign against Germany, including noting a comparison to the transition to area bombing against Japan. Somewhat surprisingly, it seems that no-one has ever written a comparative study of the British Bomber Command and XXI Bomber Command's night area attacks, despite it being clear that the American campaign was heavily influenced by the tactics used by the British. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the mention of flamethrowers seems incongruous in the context, as they were a land weapon, not an aerial one. The Germans also used flamethrowers in both World Wars.
- Fair point: removed Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
did the Japanese use incendiaries when area bombing in China?
- Yes, and I've expanded this to a short para. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "series of raids against the island of Honshu"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

suggest "below the effective ~~altitude~~range"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the Departure section, I am left wondering how many bombers actually made it to Tokyo
- This is stated in the "Over Tokyo" section (279 aircraft bombed Tokyo). Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "usual practice of ~~minimizing~~downplaying the damage"
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Karacas argues that the Japanese Government..." seems odd. Why wouldn't the far worse firebombing of Tokyo be considered at least as important in the "Japanese-as-victim stereotype"? Is it because the Japanese firebombed other cities? If so, this should be better covered in this article. Are there contradictory views from other academics?
- There isn't much discussion of this in other sources. From what I've seen in Japan, it is credible though - Nagasaki and Hiroshima have multiple major memorials to the atomic bombings, but there's almost no commemoration of the destruction of other Japanese cities (Osaka and some other cities have smallish museums, but they're generally out of the way and little-known or attended). Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "10 March raid on Tokyo ~~and~~along with the atomic bomb attacks"
- I've simplified this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
should epitimize be epitomize?
- Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Nice work on an underrepresented area of our WWII coverage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you very much for this perceptive review. I think that I may now have addressed your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Supporting. Great work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out
All links to sources are working
Formatting: a couple of very minor issues:

Ref 149: the language is Japanese

It looks like the museum is in the process of revamping its website, and the English version has moved to a new URL - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Works consulted" section, Haulman is out of alphabetical sequence

Fixed Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be very comprehensive, and to meet the standards of quality and reliability set by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Nick, I reviewed this at ACR and the changes since then look good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks and have a couple of minor observations/suggestions, otherwise it looks pretty good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neer isn't specifically cited, so I would suggest moving the work to the Further reading section
which were dispatched to take off.[56][52] : suggest putting the refs in numerical order
- Thanks for this review. I've just fixed those two issues. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Okay let me see this "Great Tokyo Air Raid".

at two official memorials, several neighbourhood British neighbourhood in intro.
- Fixed this and the other uses of this spelling Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
boost the weight of bombs they could carry.[44][42][45] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Civilians had been organized into more than 140,000 neighbourhood British neighbourhood.
a rectangular area in north-eastern Tokyo designated British north-eastern.
The 73rd Bombardment Wing contributed 169 B-29s Hmm the 73rd's article says that Americans use 73d instead of 73rd.
- Discussions at WT:MILHIST have concluded that 73d, etc, isn't commonly used in US English. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and the 313rd Bombardment Wing 121 Is this a typo? 313rd?
- Good goodness, I didn't realise that Americans did things like that to the Queen's English which refined people like Australians speak. Changed to 313th per US usage. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Nick I still see some 313rds like this one "The 73rd and 313rd Bomb Wings' Superfortresses were" and this one "the 73rd and 313rd Bombardment Wings best crews".

G'day, I think Nick is out of town for a bit, so I adjusted the article with these edits: [2]. I trust this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Hey AR thanks for your edits. May I ask you to unlink Tokyo and the United States by MOS:OVERLINK they shouldn't be linked. Thanks. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5 and Nick-D: G'day, I believe Nick is back now, so probably best if I leave this to him. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States doesn't seem to be linked anywhere - some important but not always well known organisations with this in its title are. Given that Tokyo is central to the article (and it covers a key event in the city's history), linking to the city in the lead seems sensible. Thanks also from me AR for those edits. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except in the infobox is the United States linked. Welcome back Nick I also have a new comment that's also my last comment. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's standard formatting for the military conflict infobox. I imagine that every FA which uses this infobox has linked countries. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a greater distance, they each carried five tons of bombs Which kinda "tons"?
- The source is a US official history about the USAAF, so while it doesn't specify which type it seems very safe to assume they're short tons. I've added the conversions. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
of between 45 and 67 miles per hour blowing from the south-east British south-east and no metric units.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
advanced in a north-westerly direction British north-westerly.
- Standardised on northeastern, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sheltered in them were burnt to death British burnt.
hundreds of people to be burnt to death British burnt.
The fire finally burnt itself out during mid-morning British burnt.
Overall, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo was burnt out British burnt.
- www.merriam-webster.com says this is OK in US English: [3] Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Learnt something new today. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Buddhist service has been conducted to mark unlink Buddhist.
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
by historians and commentators who criticise the ethics and practices British criticise.
- oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
but the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly cancelled the project in 1999 British cancelled.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In image File:US_Strategic_Bombing_of_Tokyo_1944-1945.png The area burnt out during the raid on 9/10 March is marked in black British burnt.
Families often sought to remain with their local neighbourhood associations British neighbourhood.
A number of small neighbourhood memorials were also British neighbourhood.
This is odd night attacks on the Tokyo region and the air defense of the Tokyo Region in one sentence the word region is capitalised and the other one isn't or am I wrong?
- Fixed - standardised on "Tokyo region" Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great I hope thise one would be an FA-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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