Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military history of the Aleutian Islands

Military history of the Aleutian Islands

I believe this article has the potential to get to FA status, but I'd like some external input before I make that jump. Arctic Night 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

This is a great topic for an article and the current content is rather good - great work. My suggestions for its further development are:

Was there really no warfare in this area before the colonial era as the first sentence and 'Early history' section implies? (surely the local people engaged in some form of warfare)
"The Pacific Theater was divided into three sectors – north, central and south, with the Aleutians falling inside the north sector" - it should be noted that this was how the Americans divided the Pacific. The Japanese had different arrangements.
"the former served as an ideal physical bridge between the two nations of Japan and the United States" - this is confusing given that the article says at other points that the climate was so awful that the islands had little military value
Other battles were fought only between surface ships well after the Battle of the Komandorski Islands (the sinking of Japanese heavy cruiser by British destroyers off Malaya or American destroyer attacks on convoys off Japan in the last weeks of the war would get this honour, with the Battle of Surigao Strait on 25 October 1944 being the last major battle between surface ships.
The account of the World War II Aleutian Islands Campaign seeks a bit focused on the experiences of Allied troops (for instance the Japanese defensive preparations and successful evacuation of Kiska are mentioned only briefly compared to the Allied movements)
After they recaptured the Aleutians the Americans used them as bases to conduct a fairly low-level air campaign against Japan's northernmost islands which laster until almost the end of the war and later seriously considered basing B-29s there (I've got some material on the air raids in draft form at User:Nick-D/Drafts7#Bombing of the Kuril Islands which may be of interest, and Volume Five of the official history of the USAAF in the war covers the discussions about deploying B-29s to the Aleutians). While these raids were largely ineffective, they did cause the Japanese to worry about an American invasion force coming from this direction.
The islands' role as a conduit for Lend Lease aid to the USSR (particularly for ferry flights by aircraft) seems worth mentioning
The role of early warning stations in the Aleutians during the Cold War should be covered.
Likewise the islands' current role as the base for the Sea-based X-band Radar is worth a mention.
Are any Alaska National Guard units/detachments currently located in the Aleutians? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XavierOfGreen

As i stated on the talk page and nickd stated above the cold war history needs to be covered, as well as at least some mention of warfare practices of the Aleut.
There is footage in Victory at Sea of leand lease transfers in the Aleutions, so it should be well documented in print as well.
The coast guard loran stations in the aleutions should probly be mentioned as well.XavierGreen (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

I recommend taking the article to A-class review before FAC; there's a lot to work on here, and we can help you through it. I've got some comments on the lead; hope this helps.
Agreed with Nick that it's a little awkward to begin by saying that the military history started on such-and-such a date. Not everyone takes "history" to mean written history. Humans have been in the Aleutians for a long time.
"a number of war strategies examined ...": I'd prefer "War strategists were examining ...".
"While the Aleutian Islands were seen as a potential staging point for invasions by either side, this possibility was dismissed owing to the islands' dismal climate." Do you mean some saw it one way and some disagreed? Who won the argument?
"the United States Navy began to take an interest in the islands. However, nothing of significance was to materialize until World War Two.": I don't follow. What did the US Navy do that signified an interest but was not "of significance"?
"wanted to recapture the two islands,": It's better to discuss actions rather than states of mind, which are harder to document, and usually self-evident (as here). "planned to recapture" or "made plans to recapture" would be better.
"in January the following year": it couldn't have been January the previous year, so "in January" is better.
WP:MOS and American style guides ask for double quotes rather than single quotes.
"to release a blast 385 times that released by": This doesn't mean anything without saying what you're measuring: explosive force? energy?
"failed by one vote": I know it looks like voting, but say "failed in a 4–3 decision" instead. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuprum17

An interesting subject for discussion and a good start. As a retired Coast Guardsman I will make one observation and a recommendation for improvement of the article.

The article fails to mention anything about the United States Revenue Cutter Service and it's involvement with pelagic sealing treaty enforcement. You may wish to read further about the USRCS and its history in Alaskan waters in a couple of books that I recommend: Irving H. King, The Coast Guard Expands, 1865-1915: New Roles, New Frontiers, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 1996, ISBN 978-1-55750-458-6 and Alaska and the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service 1867-1915, Truman R. Strobridge and Dennis L. Noble, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 1999, ISBN 978-1-55750-845-4. While it may be argued that the USRCS was not a miltary service during that time, they were the principal enforcer of sealing laws in the Bering Sea and the only law enforcement in the Alaska Territory at the time. Any role the Navy played with sealing enforcement was very minor. After the formation of the Coast Guard in 1915 any role the Coast Guard had in the Aleutian Island chain would have had some military significance as by law the Coast Guard after 1915 is an armed service on equal footing with the other 4 armed services.

If I can help in any way, let me know on my talk page. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]