Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Saipan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Saipan

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk)

Battle of Saipan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because The Battle of Saipan was one of the major battles in the 1941-1945 Pacific War, it's 80th anniversary is on 15 June 2024. I started with this article cleaning up references for one issue, and realized this article could use a major overhaul and expansion, particularly with sources, maps and images. I think it has come far enough for a peer review. To those who take a look, thank you. And I hope I have helped to make this topic interesting to you and other readers. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's good to see this article on a key battle of World War II here. It needs a fair bit more work to reach A-class status though, and I have the following comments:

  • The sentence starting with 'The speed with which the Marshalls were occupied' is a bit over-complicated, and it would be good to note when the invasion was brought forward.
  • This section should also cover the assembly of the invasion force
  • The background section should also cover the pre-1944 history of Saipan
  • Added background as first paragraph of the "Military Geography" section. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The 'Japanese defensive preparations' section doesn't really capture the importance the Japanese assigned to Saipan: they knew that it would become a dangerous B-29 base if captured.
  • A sentence on B-29s is added in this larger reworking. Interestingly, most sources do not focus on this. My guess is because the Japanese were focused on reacting to the action around Biak and assuming a strike into the Carolines.
  • This section should also cover the overall Japanese plan for the defence of the Mariana Islands, including the plans to use aircraft and the IJN to defeat the US invasion fleet - this appears much later in the article.
  • The background section now includes a subsection on Japan's defensive plans.
  • The 'Saipan's military geography' should note the climate
  • Added climate as first two sentences of second paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The Opposing forces section needs to be referenced, and there's inconsistencies in how the names of various senior officers are presented here.
  • Reworked whole section I disliked this section when I started editing, but thought it was a kind of template for the Pacific War island battles as I find it everywhere. As per Hawkeye7's Battle of Tinian, I just put the command structure of the major units into the prose narrative and deleted the section.
  • "The attack took out nearly one-third of the 435 planes in Vice Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet, which had been deployed to defend the Marianas" - this is the first time this force has been noted, despite there being a section focused on Japanese defences.
  • Kakuta's 1st Air Fleet has been added here in the Japanese strategic plan heading. Further modifications to Kakuta's role in the article include a change and a later update in Japanese Naval Response, and an update to Preparatory Attacks. I didn't give specific numbers as the various sources wildly disagree. What is clear is the land-based airpower was devastated. I used Toll's estimate of 100, as it was more conservative.
  • The grammar in the sentence starting 'It was had a wide gap just north of Charan Kanoa' is a bit off, and the sentence as a whole is over-complex
    • fixed grammar. Made sentence slightly longer, turning it into a list of three problems, but grammatical complexity should be reduced. If you'd like me to break it up, let me know.
  • It's confusing referring to the US divisions as the '27th Infantry', '2nd Marines', etc: these terms are usually used for regiments (especially in the USMC).
    • "Division" added to each unit when named: diff, (and minor diff to fix spelling error in first mention of "Division" in previous diff.)
  • The 'Aftermath' section should be reworked to avoid single paragraph sections
  • The 'Naval air dominance' section doesn't seem to add anything
  • The material on the use of Saipan as a B-29 base is confusing. This was always one of the main goals of the operation, reflecting long-term plans (the overarching strategy was to develop B-29 baes in the Marianas, with the operation in China always being a stop-gap until airfields in the islands were available). Reflecting this, airfield construction crews arrived fairly early in the piece. The article presents all of this as being a bit of an afterthought rather than central to the entire operation.
  • Material has been reworked as follows:
(1) Strategic bombing is now early in Aftermath to reduce perception of afterthought.
(2) As suggested, added information on when aerodrome construction started, Emphasizing its earliness.
(3) Reorganization into three paragraphs. Logic of tentative organization:
¶1. Shift to strategic bombing; Yawata synchronized with invasion symbolizing this.
¶2. Explanation of role of Marianas in being a well-suited site for strategic bombing.
¶3. Saipan's specific role in the initiation of Marianas-based strategic bombing.
(4). Removed discussion of China-based B-29s, except for explaining the origination of the Yawata Steel Works raid. The relation of China bases vs. the Marianas is a complicated issue that evolved over time. For example, China-based bombing, supplemented by bases in the Aleutians-based bombing, was conceived as a sufficient project in its own right at the First Quebec Conference in 1943, though one of the justifications for the strategy was lack of available islands. (see C.C.S 323 on pp. 995–1000). Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Arnold didn't see the value of using mandate islands as bomber bases even as late as the Quebec conference, stating most were atolls. (see pp. 861-862) Wtfiv (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material presenting one view of the importance of strategic bombing in the Japanese surrender is out of place, and this is a famously complex and debated topic so it's not NPOV to present only one view and not the others.
  • Deleted the two quotes, reworked material for perceptions of Japanese.
The intended point wasn't to get into the controversial and charged issue of what caused the Japanese to surrender (e. g., strategic bombing, submarine warfare, the Soviet declaration of war, the atomic bombs, and more.). My intention was to emphasize the effect B-29 bombing had on Japanese morale and perceptions. I'm hoping the rewrite makes this more clear. One of citations points towards quotes from ten Japanese leaders in addition to the two that I left in the text. (The remaining two were inherited from the original article.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of the links in the 'See also' section really needed? If these people played a significant role in the battle, they should be linked in the body of the article.
  • The number of photos seems excessive, and it would be good to left justify some of them.
  • Deleted many, shifted a few. The original presentation was an experiment in presenting many images, each illustrating a topic in the text but avoiding MOS:SANDWICH; it didn't look too bad on a mobile.
I may have to rework again to avoid sandwiching once more maps are added. Maps added...I think sandwiching is okay.
  • More maps could be added Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this comment, I'd like to get a bit more help from you about the maps. The Battle of Saipan map has the frontlines at each section of the narrative, and labels all the places mentioned in the narrative. (Except Tanapag plain, which is mentioned in context as between Makunsha and Tanapag.) But I can see a reader may not want to keep clicking back to that map. I could certainly add more in the sections. Where would would you like to see them, How many is reasonable, and what level of focus (whole island, or zoom in to the front?) would you like to see? Wtfiv (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest adding maps (where available, from the US official histories and similar) to illustrate the key engagements. A map of the landing/lodgement phase of the operation would be very useful, for instance. A map showing the 'Smith vs Smith' phase of operations would help to illustrate the issue here. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the reply, Nick-D. Please see my comment at the bottom of Hawkeye7's review. Wtfiv (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done a set of maps. If you go to the page for each map Wikimedia Commons, the pages where the frontlines were derived are linked there. Wtfiv (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note regarding Hawkeye's great comments below, it's common for articles on battles of the Pacific War to need a surprising amount of material explaining how they fitted into each protagonist's strategy and the strategic situation. This is because most of the battles were essentially small stand-alone campaigns given the geography of the war (e.g. in comparison to the European theatre of the war where battles tended to occur in fairly rapid succession as part of general offensives and don't need as much introductory material). Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Nick-D. When first working on this article, I could see that authors quickly got caught up in the MacArthur-King tension. My goal is to keep discussion of it to a minimum: acknowledging it and getting the facts right but focusing on the invasion. Both you and Hawkeye have provided with more guidance to help me better navigate these complexities. I'll do my best to address your concerns without being enmeshed in the details. I'm sure you two will guide me where I need to work it out more. Wtfiv (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look great. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7

[edit]

This is excellent work by a skilled content creator, and I am surprised that I haven't encountered you before.

Thank you, Hawkeye7, for both the compliment and the feedback. I'll be one the road this coming week, so a bit slow in addressing most of the points raised until I get back. I'll first address Nick-D's. In particular, our bullet points 1, 2 and 4 look like they may take a bit more thinking through. Wtfiv (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • American strategic objectives
  • Reworked and expanded paragraphs 2–3 attempting to first four bullet points. (Major diff and minor cleanups here and here.) Intended logic of presentation:
¶ 1. (Mainly unchanged), sets up situation at beginning of 1944; defines King's support for Plan Orange and its relation to the Central Pacific offensive.
¶ 2–3. Global overview of Marianas status as strategic objective. Steps back to 1943 with focus on three conferences: discussing through King's advocacy for the Marianas and the CCS decisions. Also note MacArthur's concerns.
¶ 4. Shifts to operational implementation by Nimitz in 1944. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is not incorrect, but it is misleading, because this decision to give priority to the Central Pacific drive was taken in May 1943, before the Admiralty Islands, and the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaigns referred to in the previous paragraph. For the record, CCS 417 (at Cairo) said: "The advance in the Pacific shall be simultaneous along both axes and shall be mutually supporting, that when conflicts in timing and allocation of means exist, due weight should be accorded to the fact that operations in the Central Pacific promise at this time a more rapid advance toward Japan and her vital lines of communication." (Hayes, p. 550) So priority, yes, but the acceleration of MacArthur's timetable under Reno IV undermined the rationale for it.
  • The third is even more misleading. King had decided that with the capture of the Gilberts and Marshalls, the Marianas would be the next objective. This goal been formally endorsed by the Allies at the Cairo Conference in November 1943, which set their invasion for 1 October 1944. This is incorrect. The Marianas were added to the objectives list (CCS 387) at Cairo,[1] but not immediately after; Ponape and Truk were to be secured first. (see Matloff, p. 377)
  • Deleted conflation of grand strategic decision making (CCS) with more operational decisions. Section omits mention of Gilberts and Marshalls. Rewords CCS statement at Cairo to adding the Marianas as an objective for the Central Pacific offensive
  • The invasion the Marianas, codenamed Forager,[22] was originally scheduled for October–November 1944. You have already said this in the previous paragraph.
  • Fixed. This was an artifact of addressing a concern by Nick-D, moving information without deleting the original. Latest reworking integrates this in the context of Cairo.
  • The debate over the schedule in March 1944 is covered in Matloff pp. 455-459. The SWPA and POA staffs debated the issue at a conference in Pearl Harbor on 27-28 January 1944. Kenney, Kinkaid, Sutherland, Towers and Sherman all expressed reservations about the Marianas operation. Sherman felt it would be costly, and there were concerns about their suitability as a base given that they had no harbours. (see Hayes, pp. 545-548) Another conference was held in Washington in March, but there was still no decision on the Marianas vs Truk. (Hayes, p. 555) Sherman argued that the Marianas could be used to neutralise Truk. (Hayes, p. 556) As noted, JCS the decided on 12 March to invade the Marianas on 15 June. (Hayes, p. 560)
  • I've kept the narrative at a high strategic level, focusing on King and the CCS in paragraphs 2 and 3. Mention MacArthur's concerns note the SWPA concerns regarding POA operations.
I know if we move down to the finer grain of the JCS, SWPOA, and POA discussions, it gets more complicated. As you mention, the Pearl Harbor and Washington conferences continued the back and forth about the Marianas. The debate constantly shifts: a number of the individuals took different sides of the argument at different times. (e.g., Nimitz being willing to forego the Marianas as a result of the Pearl Harbor discussion, and King having to him of the Cairo decision.)
I'm hoping that the two paragraphs focused on King and the CCS make the main point about King's insistence while getting the reader quickly to Saipan. It would be nice to have an article that got into these gnarly details that could be linked. I find it fascinating, and appreciate the deeper dive in terms of understanding the complexities but trying to reflect them simply that your comments have led me to. (The Granite II article?)
Is overall form of the current edit okay with you? Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although King was nominally CNO, this was an administrative role. His authority derived from being CinC US Fleet (COMINCH) and should be referred as such.
  • Although Nimitz was CinC Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC), in this context he should be referred to by his other role, as CinC Pacific Ocean Areas (CINCPOA).
  • Done, see diff above. May want to check if links are appropriate.
  • Recommend moving footnote b into the body. This is an important part of the campaign.
  • Done, Nick-D noted that I needed to add that information, so it may have been missed. (Or perhaps it wasn't enough.) It's now in main text under American invasion force and its been expanded slightly. Wtfiv (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked sentence in second paragraph to make it more clear that the capture of the Marianas the central theme of the paragraph.
Wtfiv (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese defensive preparations
    • fn 35 contains a stray bracket
      • Someone graciously fixed it.
    • " but most of their equipment ... were lost" was lost
    • " to defeat an invading force at the beaches, when the invading troops were most vulnerable" where the invading troops
      • Fixed. The diff for this and all but one change in this section below is here.
    • Link defence in depth
      • Done
    • "Other soldiers were stranded survivors headed to other islands when their ships were sunk" I Had difficult parsing this. I think you mean that they had been headed for other islands, but wound up on Saipan.
      • reworded Many soldiers were stranded survivors of sunken ships headed to other islands.
    • "the timing of the invasion surprised the Japanese, who thought they had until November to complete their defense" If you have the book, I would be interested in knowing what footnote 43 refers to.
      • I checked the convenience link the the citation, and it looks like it works. I'll put it here: p. 139 The Lacey sources a G-2 intelligence report from 11 July 1944 interrogating Major "Kiyoshi Yoshida". (see footnote g for questions regarding his reports during and after the war, which are used widely in reliable sources to describe the Japanese side of the battle.) The date can be argued for: It's at the end of the monsoon season and closer to the original date set at the Cairo conference, but that'd be WP:OR. Other sources make the same point, but none give a reason.
    • " after the Japanese government had taken over Saipan from Germany in 1914." full stop instead of comma
      • Done
    • "Saipan was the first island of the war " Can you rephrase this?
      • Reworded: Saipan was the first island during the Pacific war
    • " large urban centers" Seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.
    • "civilians lived on the island primarily serving the sugar industry" comma after "island"
      • done
  • Opposing forces
      • Deleted format and replaced with narrative section I didn't change this because I thought this was an informal "best practice" for Pacific War Island articles, as so many of them have this.
    • I really, really don't like the use of abbreviations for ranks. Are bits that expensive?
      • Section deleted, all named officers are given their full ranks without abbreviation.
    • Kelly Turner commanded TF 51, of which TF 52, which he also commanded, was a part. This should be added.
      • Kelly's dual role already mentioned, parenthetical addition of TF 52.
    • Source?
      • Narrative descriptions are now sourced.
  • June 15: D-Day
    • Recommend moving the map in the Opposing forces section down to this section.
      • Suggestion is a good one. Not implemented yet, please see response at end.
      • Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
    • Link star shell on first use.
      • Link moved to first instance. Most suggested changes from here until "Logistics" is in this diff
    • Suggest moving the first paragraph of "Japanese naval response" back into the "Japanese defensive preparations" section, and the other two into the "Battle of the Philippine Sea" to reduce disruption of the narrative.
      • Material rearranged. New section Japanese Strategic Plan now has material from first paragraph and additions. Material on Submarine Admiral Takeo Takagi and his relevance added. Remainder moved to Battle of Philippine Sea.
  • June 16–20: Southern Saipan
    • First image is a red link for some reason.
      • Fixed (in some previous edit).
    • "on June 20" should be "on 20 June"
      • Corrected that, and many other date reversals.
    • "To prepare for the upcoming naval battle, the American transports continued to unload supplies and reinforcements throughout June 17." This is wrong; they would have done this anyway. Move the first phrase to the next sentence.
      • Reworked as per suggestion.
    • "On June 19-20" -> "on 19-20 June"
      • done
    • Suggest making "Battle of Philippine Sea" a separate section, as it is not part of Southern Saipan (or rename that section)
      • done
    • June 17 -> 17 June
      • done
  • 21-24 June: Central Saipan, initial attack
    • "Frustrated by what he saw as lack of progress by the 27th Division, Holland Smith relieved its commander, Major General Ralph Smith" 27th Division -> 27th Infantry Division, delete "Major General" Is it more American to use their middle initials as well?
      • I used their middle initial when introducing them, but here I'm using first names to distinguish the Smiths. If you think I should include their middle initial, let me know.
    • June 22 -> 22 June
      • done
  • 25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough
    • "the XXIV artillery corps" This is wrong; it was the XXIV Corps Artillery.
      • done
    • " had moved" -> "moved"
      • done
  • 1–6 July: Pursuit into northern Saipan
    • Move the last paragraph into the next section
      • done
  • 7–9 July: Gyokusai attack and battle's end
    • "On 11 July, the Americans found the body of general Saitō." -> "On 11 July, the Americans found Saitō's body"
      • done
    • "Though many civilians were able to surrender early in the battle.[269] surrender became more difficult as the battle moved into the northern mountains." Replace full stop with comma.
      • done
    • "The places they jumped from would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff". You have forgotten to say that many committed suicide in this manner.
      • Reword Many died by throwing themselves off cliffs at places that would become known as "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff"
    • Delete the "Further resistance" heading; it is only one paragraph. (Consider moving the paragraph into the "Aftermath" section.)
    • Make "Casualties" its own section. Readers often go looking for this
      • Done
  • Aftermath
    • "The capture of Saipan, along with MacArthur's victory in Hollandia, pierced the Japanese Exclusive National Defense Sphere." Except that on your map, Hollandia is not within it.
    • fn 289, 308: page number?
      • Both fixed
  • Nothing on logistics. Sigh.

**See note below. Logistics section added after casualties. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 and Nick-D I have finished a first pass through your thoughtful comments. I particularly appreciate your kindness as you wade through the typos and errors.

:*I have attempted to address the core comments, so if you feel it is productive I could address second-round comments. But, I still have a couple of more secondary tasks I'd like to try before I feel I have addressed your comments in full, so if you think we should wait and I can ping you when I feel they are done, that works too. Here's the remaining tasks I see:

  • Nick-D's challenge with the maps. Tracking all the references in the narrative can be a terror. Nick-D has given me an easy solution, which is to take the best from Hoffman, Crowl and Shaw et al and use them. I may. Before going that direction, I'd like to experiment with creating a set consistent with the .svg, but that requires some care and they'd require review. If it gets overwhelming, I can try Nick-D's suggested default.
  • I'd like to build a modest logistics section as per Hawkeye's suggestion. I considered logistics. I deferred because I'd have to think about how to keep it simple. The complexity of detail could risk overwhelming an article that is already on the long side. But I like the challenge. Logistics is the bedrock of the campaign. Section created.
  • I need to run through a couple more rounds of minor copyediting.
  • All this is done (well, copy editing is endless.)
  • Nick-D, I feel I owe you a special apology. I recently read your Bugle article on doing a review, and saw I did one of your "don'ts" when I let you know I'd be delayed in responding just after you took the time to review. An unfortunate mix of the article catching interest two days before I had to head out and the resulting real life situation require a lot more care than I thought.
Wtfiv (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D and Hawkeye7 I've attempted to address all the concerns for this round. Logistics section and maps I mentioned as final items have been drafted. Wtfiv (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Some final points:
  1. I copy edited the Logistics section to remove a series of typos. (Pet peeve: "ordinance" instead of "ordnance")
    Thank you, Hawkeye7! Wtfiv (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Morison says that the Marianas were claimed in 1565, as does the CIA. [2]. Your source says Saipan was occupied in 1564. I looked at Quimby, Frank J. (2017). "Spain in the Mariana Islands, 1521–1898". Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Colonialism in Asia-Pacific: The Southwest Pacific and Oceanian Regions. pp. 146–194. doi:10.2307/j.ctvx07b3c.13. and it says 1565 too. Can we re-check?
    I put 1565Morison (thanks!) as he is already given as a source. Three other sources I looked up. One gave an exact date 3 Feb 1565. Wtfiv (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tojo was succeeded as prime minister by Koiso, but Tojo was also Minister of the Army and Chief of the Army General Staff; he was succeeded in those posts by Hajime Sugiyama and Yoshijirō Umezu respectively. (Suggest just adding "as prime minister")
    added "as prime minister". It helps keeps the article focused, but I will be looking up the other two. I'm curious. Wtfiv (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Support. Great work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Books
    Link Herbert P. Bix, James L. Cate, Richard B. Frank, James C. Olson, Craig L. Symonds, Steven J. Zaloga
    Chapin (1994) has location, but nothing else does. Personally, I prefer locations as it is the usual academic style and therefore aids someone lifting the source, but removal is easy and will make the references consistent.
    Craven and Cate is volume V, not volume VI
    Coakley and Leighton (1987) "United States Army n world War II" Typo.
    Crowl (1993) is not volume 9; the series has no volume numbers
    Dod (1987): is also part of the United States Army in world War II series.
    Forrestel (1966): Capitalise "government"
    Hiroyuki (2022): Add editors (Frank Reichherzer, Tomoyuki Ishizu), OCLC (1346915967)
    Hornfischer (2016) Add OCLC (1016508640)
    Wetzler, Peter (2020): Formatting; need an asterisk
     Done. here Except that I kept the Hiroyu OCLC to the English language version I had. I hope that's okay.
  • Journal articles, reports and theses
    Hemler (2018) and Kaune (1990) are master's theses. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (Annoying, I know. My own master's thesis gets more citations than the PhD.)
    Use degree= rather than type= for theses
    Plung (2021): use title case
    Sullivan (1995) is a book chapter from The Mechanism for Strategic Coercion: Denial or Second Order Change?
    Why is Defense Technical Information Center only linked once?
     Done diff Swapped out Hemler Masters for doctorate. Lost the Kaune, though I do feel badly as it is a publically accessible work focused on the 27th Infantry divsion
    I have had the same experience. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Allowing Master's theses when not used to dispute more reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so glad to hear it. I think I get the original policy. In contentious issues, a Master's may not be a reliable source for making an argument. But in historical reviews like this, I find that master's theses can be great sources for giving an overview, particularly when they are web accessible. For example, the acknowledged history for the 27th Infantry is Edmund Love's book, which is hard to get hold of, and has the additional problem of getting POV'ed into the Smith vs. Smith controversy. Kaune's overview has the advantage of being written from a historical distance, and the DTIC thought it was good enough to post (which doesn't mean it was closely review, of course.) It sounds like the discussion is appropriate and I'll take a look. Wtfiv (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary sources
    Sheeks (1945) is out of alphabetic order
    Should you link United States Strategic Bombing Survey since it is an author?
    Don't think Willoughby counts as a primary source
     Done See diff above.
  • Footnotes
    fn 97 is dubious. Text says: " moved closer to shore because the sea was found to be free of mines". Source says: (on pp. 74-75, not 75) "none of the ships was allowed to move closer than 10,000 yards (five nautical miles) from the shore for fear of mines"
    checkY I think the problem is it should be page number 76, which now corrected. This references Oldendorf's old battleships, not Lee's newer one's, which pp. 74–75 are referring to.
    fn 160: page number for Morison?
     Done
    Consider consolidating fn 287-289
     Done mainly concerned that only Sheeks emphasizes the point made in the middle citation.
    fn 295-296: Strange formatting with square brackets
     Done Changes for this and above are in this diff.
    fn 316 is dubious, considering the next sentence, which says that bombing started from China.
    Kept the citation, but consolidated it and expanded it to page 4. Qualified the point with dependent clause mentioning Chengdu with link that mentions the airfields. IF you feel I'm still not capturing the point made by Craven and Cate, let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spot checks 12, 17, 81, 97, 156, 160, 316 - mostly okay, some issues (above) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these have all been addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a go at getting the books into alphabetic order, correcting a couple of typos and adding some more author links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Wtfiv, some comments:

Thank you Matarisvan. I made most of changes in this edit. There's a few I didn't do, but if you feel they improve the article, I will
  • "range of United States Army Air Forces B-29 bombers": consider changing to "range of B-29 bombers of the United States Army Air Forces" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE?
checkY reworked paragraph and removed sea of blue.
  • "resignation of Prime Minister of Japan Hideki Tōjō": change to "resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the Prime Minister of Japan" for the same reason as above?
 Done Part of paragraph reworking
  • "Ships personnel": Wouldn't "naval personnel" be better?
I inherited this from the article, but I think the intention here is to distinguish naval personnel killed on ships from those who were killed on the island.
  • Link to line of communication?
checkY
  • Consider moving left aligned images to right alignment per MOS:IMAGELOC?
Originally, I had right-aligned all images, but Nick-D recommended the variety in image placement. I think the suggestion makes the page look a little better. I did set up the images to avoiding MOS:SANDWICH
  • Link to Rota?
checkY
checkY
  • Link to Magicienne Bay (Laolao Bay)?
checkY
  • Link to Kagman?
I didn't link Kagman because the text refers to the peninsula, not the village. The article on Kagman is also bare at this point. But if you think the link would help readers get a geographic sense of the location, I will.
  • Link to Tanapag?
checkY
  • Link to Marpi?
I didn't link this as it references the point, not the village, but will add if it will help readers.
  • Link in the biblio to John W. Dover, Thomas Havens, Daikichi Irokawa, Noriko Kawamura, Michael Kort, Yuki Tanaka, William T. Y'Blood, Richard P. Hallion, Preston Cloud, Vincent O'Hara?
checkY
  • Consider converting the Y'Blood 1981 reference to an sfn tag?
That alternative format is to prevent a cite error. (There are two citations to the same page, but one has a ps and the other doesn't.
  • Miller 1991 is the only source which uses the Citation template instead of Cite book, consider using the latter?
checkY Fixed.

Overall, a very fine article, there were some very minor grammatical errors which I corrected, I hope you do not mind. That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate yout taking the time to look over the article. Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the links to Kagman and Marpi aren't necessary, and the sfn conversion is also not required. There's a minor correction needed, though. The link for Yuki Tanaka points to a volleyball player, the article we want is Yuki Tanaka (historian). Otherwise, happy to extend my support for promotion to A Class. Matarisvan (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wtfiv, one minor comment I somehow forgot to post: These sentences "This battle sealed the fate for the Japanese forces defending Saipan. Though they did not know it, they could not expect expect further assistance." are great for a research paper or article, but are not encyclopedic. Something like this would be much better: "As a result of this battle, the Japanese troops on Saipan could not be reinforced, resupplied or provided military support anymore." Also consider replacing the word "doomed" with something neutral. Matarisvan (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded sentence incorporating suggested ideas, but kept sense from the Morison quote that the defenders weren't aware of their situation. Removed word "doom". Wtfiv (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Please clarify whether you are in full support of promotion of this article to A-class in view of the previous edit. If so, it appears ready for promotion and I will make the necessary change to the assessment. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am in support of promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Lots of images in this one.

All images are appropriately licenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review, Hawkeye7, and for the compliments regarding the maps. Wtfiv (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Saipan&oldid=1231918387"