Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Transom

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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Transom

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Transom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Transom was one of the most diverse military operations of World War II. Undertaken in May 1944, it involved a fleet made up of ships from six Allied nations (including a British and an American aircraft carrier) that sailed from Ceylon, refuelled in Australia and attacked a city in the Japanese-occupied Netherlands East Indies. The sources are oddly divergent over whether the raid was a success, but all agree that it provided the British with useful exposure to superior American carrier tactics.

I developed this article as a sister article to Operation Cockpit, which covers a similar operation undertaken by essentially the same Allied forces and passed an A-class review in June. This article was assessed as a GA in August, and has since been considerably expanded. I am hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria, and would be grateful for any comments about how it could be further improved. Thank you in advance. Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • All sources are of high quality.
  • Spot checks: 6, 7, 14, 23, 25, 45,
    • fn 20a: article says: "The Allied aircraft sank one ship, drove another aground, damaged oil storage tanks and destroyed up to 28 Japanese aircraft on the ground"; source says: "Only one small merchantman was sunk, and another forced ashore. Twenty-one aircraft were destroyed on the Sabang airfield, and three more on the more distant one." That makes 24?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

[edit]
  • In the second para of the "Surabaya in World War II" section, there is repeated use of Japanese. Could this be trimmed?
  • Allied and Japanese Plans: The remaining force was ships were capable only... suggestion?
  • Also, any info on the number of ships in the Fleet at this time? Later, it is mentioned that it received 146 ships as reinforcements in 1944, which seems an enormous number.
    • It would be hard to provide a meaningful number, given that ships moved in and other of the area - the key fact is that it lacked the types of ships needed for offensive operations. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allied and Japanese Plans: the Allied leadership agreed that "the main effort against Japan should be made in the Pacific"... shouldn't there be a cite against the quote here?

More to come. Zawed (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Allied and Japanese plans: dupe links: submarines, aircraft carrier
  • Prelude: However, they had little intelligence on the strength...; intelligence is also used in the previous sentence, perhaps this instance could be changed to "information"?
  • Prelude: There a few dupe links in this section, all in the second sentence of the 3rd para
  • Attack: dupe links; the aircraft types mentioned in the 3rd para
  • Attack: in the 3rd para, the Corsairs of Force B are identified as being British; is the same true of those of the Force A (since they have taken off from the British carrier)?
  • Attack: remained in Surabaya's port until 3 pm; for consistency in presentation of times, shouldn't it be 3:00 pm?
  • Aftermath: Saratoga and her three escorting American destroyers detached from the Eastern Fleet shortly before sunset on 18 March,...; that should be 18 May?
  • Aftermath: the amount of info on Saratoga seems a little excessive given the focus of the article and could be trimmed. Perhaps Saratoga proceeded to Bremerton, Washington via Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. It arrived at Bremerton on 10 June, and underwent after a refit there that lasted for the northern summer. The carrier rejoined the Pacific Fleet in September 1944

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Lead:

  • It was conducted by the British-led Eastern Fleet, and involved aircraft launched from American and British aircraft carriers striking the city's docks and an oil refinery.
"striking" -> wouldn't which or that bombed" be more on point
Done Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surabaya in World War II:

  • It became one of the main port cities in Asia during the late 19th century, and was the centre of the NEI's sugar export industry.
This sentence contains an independent clause and a dependent clause: when a dependent clause follows an independent clause a comma is not used.
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surabaya was bombed on a large number of occasions during this campaign, with the first air raid focusing on the port and naval base.
  • "a large number of" could be replaced by "many"?
  • "this" campaign would be better stated as "the" cmapaign. -> This is used when something referred to is close at hand - the campaign is yet to be mentioned in this section?
  • The Wonokromo oil refinery located in the city was important to the Japanese, and was the only facility in Java which produced aviation fuel.
The first clause is independent, the second one is dependent - no comma needed.
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large numbers of Allied aircraft attacked facilities in Surabaya on 22 July and the night of 8/9 November 1943.
What were the results?
Added a bit more. There isn't much on these attacks in the sources - nothing I can see in the USAAF official history, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A & J plans:

  • Their main naval force there, the British-led Eastern Fleet which was headed by Admiral Sir James Somerville, was weak.
Consider this version: Their main naval force there was the debilitated British-led Eastern Fleet, which was headed by Admiral Sir James Somerville.
Tweaked, but I don't think that 'debilitated' is accurate as the ships seem to have been in OK repair: the problem was that there weren't many of them. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I stand correted! If the force was weak, describing why would be helpful to readers? Pendright (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was small - added Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reinforcements which were scheduled to arrive over the next four months comprised 146 warships, and included three battleships, two aircraft carriers, fourteen cruisers and large numbers of destroyers and other escort vessels.
  • comprised -> would comprise
  • and included -> drop included
  • The first substantial group of reinforcements reached the Eastern Fleet's base at Ceylon on 27 January; these included the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, battleships HMS Queen Elizabeth and Valiant and battlecruiser HMS Renown.[11]
"these included" -> these reinforements included
That seems repetitive. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortages of destroyers hindered the fleet's ability to conduct offensive operations until April, however, as priority needed to be given to escorting convoys.[15]
"needed to be given", or was given
Done Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This change was made to evacuate the fleet from its bases in the central Pacific, which were now vulnerable to American attacks, and concentrate it at a location with good naval repair facilities and ready access to fuel.
Change now to then
Tweaked, but I don't think that 'then' is the right word. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Now means "at the present time", then means "at that time" Pendright (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the problem here. The material is covering what the Japanese did in early January 1944 and why, so the use of tense seems OK. Could you suggest alternate wording? Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - Pendright (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Japanese did not intend to undertake any large-scale attacks into the Indian Ocean.
Does this need a source?
It's covered by Roskill 1967 pp. 347–348, as given. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States Navy also agreed to temporarily transfer the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga and three destroyers from the Pacific to augment the Eastern Fleet.[17]
Is Saratoga worthy of a link?
It is linked at present. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prelude:

  • The head of the US Navy, Admiral Ernest King, suggested to Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, the commander of South East Asia Command that the carrier, accompanied by other vessels of the Eastern Fleet, strike Surabaya on her return voyage.
To be consistent, add a comma after command or remove the one after King
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This change was made as Somerville expected the Japanese to more strongly defend Surabaya than they had Sabang, and had decided to launch the aircraft 180 miles (290 km) from the city which was beyond the Barracuda's effective range.[23]
Add "he" ad drop had at the beginning of the second clause
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the distance to be covered from Ceylon and the Royal Navy's lack of experience in underway replenishment, the final plans for the operation involved the Eastern Fleet refuelling at Exmouth Gulf in Western Australia before striking Surabaya.[6]
Due to -> Changing it to Because of would avoid the two to's
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, they lacked information on the strength of Japanese air forces in the region, which forced the Eastern Fleet to assign large numbers of fighter aircraft to escorting the strike force and protecting the fleet rather than attacking ground targets.[25]
"to escorting" -> change to escort, which is a verb in this case - escorting is not
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Force 67 was the replenishment group, and comprised six tankers, a water distilling ship and two cruisers.
No comma is needed after Group
Done Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illustrious embarked two squadrons equipped with 14 Vought F4U Corsair fighters each and two squadrons with nine Avengers.
Missing word between embarked & two?
I don't think so. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I beg to differ! - they embarked "with" or "accompanied by". Pendright (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this grammar is fine. Please see this Google books search for similar usage. It might be a British English vs US English thing, as the other examples are all British English works. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - Pendright (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saratoga's air group comprised a squadron with 26 Grumman F6F Hellcat fighters, a squadron with 24 Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers and a squadron operating 18 Avengers torpedo bombers, as well as a single Hellcat allocated to the Air Group Leader.[27]
Avengers -> Avenger
Whoops, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attack:

  • Force A's Avengers were to bomb the Braat Engineering Works, and the Dauntlesses the oil refinery.[9]
The last clause is dependpent - no need for the commaa after works
Fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

The Macquarie English Dictionary defines aftermath as "resultant conditions", in which case the first and last paragraphs of this section seem unrelated to the meaning of the definition.
I'm not sure about that - the first para is about the naval operations that followed the attack and the last para is about the results of the attack on Japanese deployments (or the lack thereof). Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I would argue that the paragraphs could be of indirect effect but not of direct effect, which I should think is what the article might show or tell readers.Pendright (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't agree. This is a standard section heading for articles on battles as recommended at WP:MILCG, and accurately describes the content. The Oxford English Dictionary describes the term as "an effect or condition arising from an event", which seems about right for this content. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to your point of view. Pendright (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2021 (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/Operation_Transom&oldid=1040876631"