Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States war plans (1945–1950)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2021 [1].

United States war plans (1945–1950)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American war plans in the aftermath of World War II. The plans were never put into effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • "Pincher (1946)" – maybe mention somewhere that this is the nickname of an individual war plan? That was not immediately clear to me.
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When have these plans been made public? Was there any public reaction upon release?
    The plans were largely declassified under the 30-year rule in the late 1970s. Books appeared in the early 1980s, including Gregg Herken's The Winning Weapon (1980) and Borowski's A Hollow Threat: Strategic Air Power and Containment Before Korea (1982). The central issue that Soviets had the ability to overrun Europe and Asia, and that nuclear weapons were no deterrent at all doesn't seem to have made much of an impression, although I know that my generation were astounded when the old hands talked about the planned retreat to the Pyrenees. There were two factors here: the capability of Soviet conventional forces was well understood and still an important issue in the 1980s; and the fact that the atomic stockpile was small in the late 1940s had been revealed in the early 1960s (by which time the stockpile was humungous). Yet in 2016, documents on targeting obtained through FOI ("1950s U.S. Nuclear Target List Offers Chilling Insight") still made front page news in the New York Times. (Targeting is more sensitive than the war plans because it incorporated more detailed intelligence.) Comments from reviewers of the article seem to indicate a much greater fascination with the destructiveness of nuclear weapons that with the dangerous bluff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • followed, if necessary by a retreat to the Pyrenees – comma missing here behind "necessary"?
    Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B-29 – This number is not linked or explained at first mention.
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redeployed from Europe to Pacific – "to the Pacific"?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]
Those parts of the MOS are not required at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not required but small and quick fixes that are beneficial to the readers. Is that not what we're here for, or is it just the bronze star...? Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Apologies for my comment, I see they've been inserted regardless. Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Seems comprehensive and well-written, though not my field of expertise.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sorry, still catching up on things. All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry

[edit]
  • I would recommend looking again at the accessibility concerns above if they are resolvable.
    I already did them under protest. The changes to the table were extensive, complex and troublesome. I fear that they would have been a deterrent to less technical editor Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Italian, Iberian, Danish and Scandinavian peninsulas could be held against superior numbers Is this supposed to be in Wikipedia's voice or is this the opinion of the JWPC?
    It is the opinion of the JWPC. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • would be unwilling to divert the resources required to hold Scandinavia you mention Iberia, Denmark, Scandinavia, and Italy above but only Scandinavia here.
    That's correct; added a bit to clarify. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plan Moonrise, which covered it, was released When you say "released", do you mean internally or publicly?
    Internally. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious, why did the plans call for so many nukes to be dropped on cities? Surely they had seen the devastation caused in Japan at the end of WWII? Why were they planning to drop potentially dozens of atomic bombs on one city?
    The damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been studied. The map is instructive here: targets were identified as industrial, oil production and communications. It wasn't so much targeting cities per se as the industries in them. Hiroshima would have been a communications target and Nagasaki an industrial one. At Nagasaki, two industrial facilities were targeted with the one bomb. This thinking drove the acquisition of megaton bombs that could take out multiple facilities at once. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 division Army, 143 wing Air Force and 402 ship Navy those are all compound adjectives and need a hyphen between the number and the noun.
    Hyphenated. (I thought I had done this.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • improved designs, with the X-Ray and Yoke tests having yield The ", with" construction is a poor way of joining a sentence, although it's the only one I spotted.
    Corrected plural. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and ultimately that bet paid off While that's undoubtedly true, should that statement be in Wikipedia's voice or should we quote the source(s)?
    Switched to a quote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—Not much to pick at, really. A solid piece of work as usual! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harry. great to have you back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm around, but real life keeps me busy so not as much as I used to be. Anyway, LGTM. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Z1720

[edit]

I love twentieth-century history, but most of my knowledge is through the lens of Canadian history. Consider me a non-expert.

At some point the Canadians realised that nobody else was going to write Canadian military history, but I'm open to collaboration on 20th century topics. For my master's thesis my supervisor gave me a Canadian book and asked me to produce an Australian version. Which I did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically the story of Canadian history: we realised that Americans and Brits are not going to write about our history, so we have to do it ourselves. If I start editing 20th century military history topics, I'll give you a shout (though I'm more interested in the political side of history). Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review: lede and background

Many of my comments involve removing words or tightening up the language. I suggest you conduct a copyedit for similar issues in the rest of the article.

  • "were formulated on a regular basis between 1945 and 1950" This feels very general, especially for an opening sentence. Were the plans being remade from the beginning every day? Were they being revised every six months? I want much more specific language in the opening sentence. Maybe something like "were constantly created and revised by the US government between 1945 and 1950."
    Changed to "formulated and revised". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they nonetheless would have served as the basis for action had a conflict occurred." Do you need nonetheless?
    It is a s useful bridge here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At no point was it considered likely that the Soviet Union or United States would resort to war, only that one could potentially occur as a result of a terrible miscalculation." Change to "It was considered unlikely that the Soviet Union or United States would resort to war, but one could potentially occur as a result of a strategic miscalculation" This tightens up the words and removes commentary/opinion that a war between the two countries would be terrible. (Just because I think it would be terrible doesn't mean everyone thought a war was terrible.)
    Deleted "terrible" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Intelligence assessments of the Soviet Union's capabilities" whose intelligence assessments? American? This is important because the reader needs to know if this was the truth of the Soviet capabilities, or what the Americans thought was the Soviet capabilities. (or something else)
    Added "American". Linked "intelligence". The article points out that they were estimates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 6.7 million casualties were anticipated, of whom 2.7 million would be killed." When I think of "casualty" I think of someone dying, so this sentence confused me. Maybe change the word to "injuries"?
    "Casualties" is a technical term. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:BOLD, only the first occurrence of the title word or phrase should be bolded. Most of the bolded words in the body should be unbolded (especially when the word is the title of the section)
    MOS:BOLD: The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead section. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are correct that the word should be bolded in the body, per the above quote. My concern is that Pincher, Broiler, Halfmoon and Offtackle were bolded twice in the article: once in the lede and once in the body. I haven't seen this done in an article before, and I just skimmed some warfare FAs and didn't find an article that bolded a term twice. Should these terms be bolded in the lede? Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, the lead and the article are considered independent of each other, as it is the practice to use one of the other for various applications. I'll wait and see if someone else wants to weigh in on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: have I understood MOS:BOLD correctly? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the correct SandyGeorgia pinged here? Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OOps. I remember that she doesn't normally respond to pings. Will post a question on her talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn’t consider myself an authority on this, as I had a run-in myself regarding MOSBOLD with some MOS warriors in my own editing :). But ... MOS:BOLD also says (in the next sentence after those quoted) that this use is not a requirement, so it seems like we can choose to do whatever makes most sense. Most of our readers probably have no idea why we are bolding these words anyway, which would appear random to them if they don’t know about redirects, whether they are in the lead or anywhere else, so I’m not sure doing it elsewhere (twice) does them any good, so ... why do we bother? Maybe so we will remember to change it to a link should someone create that article and it is no longer a redirect? If that is unlikely to happen, I don’t see that we are helping either ourselves or the reader by having a bolded word show up in the middle of the article, making them wonder why ... not sure that answer helps at all, but I have kinda/sorta given up on keeping up with the vagaries of MOS. If it helps, I don’t recall ever seeing it done like this (twice), but I am not as active at FAC or FAR as I once was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What happened here was that there was originally separate articles for each war plan, but they were stubs. I changed them all to be redirects to this article. It's possible that they could be upgraded to real articles again, but given how long they remained as stubs, and the depth of coverage here, I wouldn't hold my breath. Accordingly, I have unboldened them in the body and left them bold only in the lead, which should satisfy the presumed requirement. Note the bit above where compliance with MOS:DTAB is requested. This is technical and tricky, and while I have complied, I fear that many editors would delete the table or not nominate at FAC at all if they had to conform. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue when these are addressed, so I do not overwhelm (and I can take a break.) Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments above to MOS:BOLD and "By the time of the surrender of Japan" bullet points. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review: Pincher, Broiler, Halfmoon

  • "The plan did not specifically call for the use of nuclear weapons, although it noted that bases within Boeing B-29 Superfortress range of key targets were lacking.[12] At the time the B-29 was the USAAF's most advanced long-range bomber.[13]" As a non-military expert, I think these sentences imply that the B-29 would be used to deploy nuclear weapons. Is this the case? If so, this should be stated in the second sentence with something like "At the time the B-29 was the USAAF's most advanced long-range bomber and would be used to deploy nuclear weapons."
    As explained later on, not all B-29s were nuclear-capable, only Silverplated ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Air Force gradually became the major user of nuclear weapons" The word "user" here confuses me, as nuclear weapons were only used in 1945. Do you mean they were the major stockpiler, the organisation in charge, the branch with the most nuclear weapons ready to deploy, or something else?
    Custody of the nuclear stockpile was in the hands of the Atomic Energy Commission. Changed to "the agency most concerned with the delivery of nuclear weapons". The original use of "user" was correct in the military usage of the word; I have a habit of using words in their narrowest, most precise meanings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Convair B-36 Peacemaker, with a range of 4,000 nautical miles (7,400 km), was being introduced to service in 1948, but was not atomic capable." Remove being
    Changed to "in the process of being introduced to service". Deliveries began in August 1947, but due to the large number of bugs, the B-36 did not become operational for several years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One reason for this was the paucity of intelligence on the precise location" This is the first time I have heard of the word "paucity". Maybe change to scarcity?
    I think "wikt:paucity" is the right word here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Broiler was accepted as an emergency war plan, this did not mean that the Joint Chiefs liked it. On the contrary, all the chiefs had reservations about it." This can be shortened to "Although Broiler was accepted as an emergency war plan, all "the Joint Chiefs had reservations about it."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mobilization plan called Cogwheel in a response to a request from the Secretary of Defense" Remove "a"
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose - Offtackle and Outcome

  • "Although he recognized the reality that the Rhine could not be held with the available forces, he wanted a return to Western Europe at the earliest possible date." Suggested change to "He determined that the Rhine could not be held with the available forces but wanted a return to Western Europe at the earliest possible date."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and neither with the concluding ones, nor post-conflict issues." Replace "ones" with "stages"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "and sought a new directive; but in the end the Western" Remove "but" or replace the semi-colon with a comma.
    That would be grammatically incorrect. Deleted "but" instead
  • "In 1947 the United States European Command (EUCOM) had ordered the sole American division stationed in Europe," Remove "had"
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This finishes my first prose check through this article. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added non-breaking spaces to the article for dates, which allows easier reading for users on a smaller screen (like a smartphone). This was taught to me by a member of the GOCE. If you do not like the changes, you can revert my edit.

After reading the article again, I support this nomination based on a prose review. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

Looks good. More comments later. ~ HAL333 20:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would link AJ Savage in the caption as you did with the other aircraft.

Assuming you fix that, I'm happy to support. ~ HAL333 14:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shotgunscoop

[edit]

I'm still a beginner at doing formal reviewing, but I just wanted to note a confusing point(s) (may add more if I find any):

  • In the Pincher section, I think that it should be more clear that "This was a major barrier, but it was anticipated that it could not be held for long" was referring to the entirety of Western Europe and not just the Rhine. Shotgunscoop (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing soon. Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Notes

  • No issues here

References

Reliability
  • No doubts here, all consistently high-quality sources
Verifiability

Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/United_States_war_plans_(1945–1950)/archive1&oldid=1012727304"