Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Kita: Difference between revisions

Operation Kita

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers the voyage of two Japanese battleships and their escorts between Singapore and Japan in early 1945. The notable features of this operation were that a) the Japanese evaded no less than 26 submarines as well as dozens of aircraft b) all the warships, and especially the battleships, were heavily loaded with drums of oil and other supplies and c) the six warships were among the last Japanese warships to safely reach port from the South West Pacific.

The article was assessed as being a GA a few weeks ago and I've since improved it. As such, I think that it might meet the A class criteria and would appreciate other editors' comments on this. I'm considering taking this to FA standard, so any comments on how the article could be further improved would also be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support a clearly written article, with some detailed suggestions below.

General points:

• If the sources have them, it would be good to have the Japanese commanders' names in the article. Only having the Allied names gives a sense in places that the article is focusing on the allied response to Operation Kita, rather than the Japanese operation itself.
  • I've looked for that, but haven't been able to find out who commanded the force.
    • Suspected that might be the case... Cheers!Hchc2009 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's frustrating. The amazing thing is that no-one ever seems to have written a comprehensive English-language history of the IJN. The histories which do exist tend to cover the period after Leyte Gulf in a short chapter, and provide little detail about the structure of the navy and its leadership in this period. I'll keep searching as this will be something FA reviewers look for. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• "to return both Ise-class hybrid battleship-aircraft carriers and their escorts from" - it's minor, but the "both" could mean either two carriers, or both the carriers and the escorts. If you said "two", the meaning would be precise.
  • Replaced with "the two" as suggested

Background:

• "the reserve of oil" - "reserves"?
  • Done

• "attempted to increase oil imports through loading drums of it on freighters" - what was the alternative to oil drums?
  • Dedicated tankers - I've clarified this

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article and your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support from baha with a couple of suggestions:
  • The infobox should probably have the number of aircraft. The body is pretty specific about the USAAF strike forces, so it shouldn't be a problem to come up with a good estimate (or range).
  • Send File:Operation Kita.jpg to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. It really ought to be a cleaner vector image, and use the standard map symbols.
  • Do any of the sources mention why no surface ships were sent to engage the IJN convoy? I know that the Allies were focused on Iwo Jima and the Philippines at the time, but this doesn't really preclude a couple of ships being spared.
  • The miss rate on the torpedos seems high (100% of 17 fired) seems high, even for WWII standards. Is this expanded upon at all in the refs?
  • The "Aftermath" section only has one sentance about the impact to the Japanese war economy, and it's pretty general. I'd like to see something specific to this mission's success, i.e. it allowed some kind of other mission to happen or a new ship to be completed, if possible.
  • The "Aftermath" section suggests that there were other convoys of warships carrying supplies. Were any of them organized in an operation like Kita, and shouldn't there be mention of them (or at least redlinks) if there were?
• All in all, a quality article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]