Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Downfall
Operation Downfall[edit]
Self nom. It's a little something I wrote. I think it's pretty accurate and complete. Also, regarding the image - I spent 6 months trying to get permissions to use it, but it's basically proven hopeless. There's a GFDL version under construction right now. →Raul654 19:15, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Short but sweet, a good read. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Marlowe 19:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good stuff. 81.168.80.170 20:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support - David Gerard 20:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Object - excellent article with hopefully easily fixed objections
- The Estimated Casualties section is a little hard to follow. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th "paragraphs" seem to contradict the 1 million casualty estimate, and a single "however" in the next paragraph suddenly switches gears.
- The paragraph you refer to was added by someone else later and I've never really liked it. I have removed most of it and refactored the rest. →Raul654 22:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, I actually thought some of that removed material was making a good point. It was just unclearly written. If the proportion of allied casualties to Japanese casualties was actually increasing towards the end of the war, and the attack points were obvious to the Japanese and they had been heavily fortifying them, and over a million troops were on the home island, then the point that a million casualties was possible is supported. If those facts arent correct, then so be it, but if they are, they need to be left in the article, just more clearly written. - Taxman 14:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- (Warning: I am uncompromisingly POV about certain points in this article, as a reading of Talk:Operation Olympic will show.) The figure of one million casualties was what the troops expected in this invasion, & a study at http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/ will show that while this high figure might be inflated, the cost in American casualties would have been equal to one-fourth of what had been suffered prior to that point -- & Japanese casualties, both military & civilian (if one can make a distinction in this possible case), many times higher. One might ask which was the more humane act: Truman's order to drop the bomb, or Emperor Hirohito's agreement to an unconditional surrender? -- llywrch 22:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The paragraph you refer to was added by someone else later and I've never really liked it. I have removed most of it and refactored the rest. →Raul654 22:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The first sentence in the 5th paragraph starting "however" is unclear - "...higher American casualties to Japanese casualties compared to those before." - before what? Before in the Pacific, or as compared to the D-day numbers just referenced? What two campaigns are being referred to and what really is a campaign? Sorry, I'm just not well versed in military terminology.
- (See above →Raul654)
- Maybe it is just my leariness that the categorization scheme will ever be robust enough, but just putting it in a category with no See also links seems to make it harder to access more background articles for the topic. - Taxman 22:14, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you are objecting to - can you clarify? →Raul654 22:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Simply that the article needs a see also section. See also's are standard in encyclopedia's and help the interested reader find related material better or in at least a complimentary way to the categorization scheme. See also could include links to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example, which currently takes reading of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki articles to get to and certainly provides a contrast to the material in this article. There are others that would be valuable that someone that is familiar with the Pacific theater in WWII could add. For example even a link to an overview of the Pacific theater would be helpful. I think See also's should be standard requirement for featured articles in fact. - Taxman 14:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- "See also" is depricated - anything that should go in a see-also should be discussed in the text itself. →Raul654 15:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Seems like that would make the text excessively long. Do you have any other basis for calling "see also" depricated, or is it merely your opinion? anthony (see warning)
- I remember seeing it in some policy somewhere, although such policies are numerous and often obscure. I could, of course, be wrong. →Raul654 02:09, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Seems like that would make the text excessively long. Do you have any other basis for calling "see also" depricated, or is it merely your opinion? anthony (see warning)
- "See also" is depricated - anything that should go in a see-also should be discussed in the text itself. →Raul654 15:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Simply that the article needs a see also section. See also's are standard in encyclopedia's and help the interested reader find related material better or in at least a complimentary way to the categorization scheme. See also could include links to Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for example, which currently takes reading of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki articles to get to and certainly provides a contrast to the material in this article. There are others that would be valuable that someone that is familiar with the Pacific theater in WWII could add. For example even a link to an overview of the Pacific theater would be helpful. I think See also's should be standard requirement for featured articles in fact. - Taxman 14:41, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you are objecting to - can you clarify? →Raul654 22:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The Estimated Casualties section is a little hard to follow. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th "paragraphs" seem to contradict the 1 million casualty estimate, and a single "however" in the next paragraph suddenly switches gears.
- Oppose. Uses non-free image that may even be a copyvio. Once the GFDL version is constructed, looks good. anthony (see warning)
- I found two very nice PD maps to use instead and have replaced the old picture. →Raul654 02:48, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good. anthony (see warning) 14:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I found two very nice PD maps to use instead and have replaced the old picture. →Raul654 02:48, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. — Matt 00:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)