Talk:Singapore strategy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, since I was thinking of writing this article, I may as well review it now you've saved me the trouble... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical review

• The following dab links need attention:
  • Fighter
  • Malaya
  • William Benson
  • William Leahy
• External links okay
• Images appear appropriately licensed but no alt text present (not an actual requirement but something to consider if taking the article further)
  • Look good now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Content review

• Plans: ...for political reasons, the naval planners were overridden by the politicians and the battleship HMS Prince of Wales and the battlecruiser HMS Repulse were sent to Singapore -- Two things with this statement: 1) actual and thematic repetition re. "political" and "politicians" -- I think it's a given that politicians do things for political reasons; 2) if you're going to say it's political, reckon you need to extrapolate a bit -- how or why was it political, e.g. because it was popular and/or cheap, or the alternative was unpopular and/or expensive, or whatever.
  • I'll add some more on this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • At your leisure, it works now given your recent trim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Criticism: ...he argued that if war was most likely to break out in the Pacific at a time when the United Kingdom was involved in a crisis in Europe that would prevent it from sending sufficient resources to Singapore -- This is a bit of a mouthful (though perhaps not beyond one sentence); can you double-check it's what you want to express because I think it can be interpreted more than one way as it stands.
  • Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Still not sure about it, I think "argued that if war" is confusing matters. Do you mean In this article he argued that war was most likely to break out in the Pacific at a time when Britain was involved in a crisis in Europe, which would prevent Britain from sending sufficient resources to Singapore? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes! Changed to that wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
• In retrospect: Many historians felt that the Singapore strategy was unrealistic all along... -- Can I just double-check that your cited source implies that "many historians" felt this?
  • Hmmm...

“ It was not until the 1970s that Britain's preparations for a Far Eastern war were closely scrutinized, and by the early 1980s a consensus had emerged that the plans developed were inherently unsound. Scholars have not been content with condemning the politicians who reduced Britain's naval strength during the interwar period: they have also censured the naval profession as a whole and criticized virtually every aspect of its preparations for war with Japan. ”

• Well, that looks like "many historians" to me... ;-) No seriously, it's just that it's the sort of phrase people pick up on at FAC and you might need to defend it. I have no prob with you using it here given what the source says. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary

• Looks good, if you can just address the above points I'll be happy to pass... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Woo-hoo, all good, happy to pass -- well done, this article was long overdue (my fault as much as anyones)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)