Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2018 [1].
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[edit]
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) & Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment The nominator (who joined Wikipedia earlier this month) has never edited the article as part of their small number of edits to date, and there have been no discussions of a FAC on the talk page. Unless editors with experience with this article believe that it's up to scratch and are willing to take on responding to FAC comments, I'd suggest that this nomination be withdrawn or closed. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I nominated the article last time, and I believe that it is up to FAC standard. Comments made in the previous FAC candidacy went to improving the coverage of what occurred on the ground. This has been improved since. I made a pass through the article correcting dates and references. I would be willing willing to take on responding to FAC comments, but I would need a fiat from the coordinator to do so. The article may be too controversial in the current climate for the front page. @Binksternet: requesting an opinion on whether the article is in good enough shape or not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's in good shape. Of course the nominator is too new to have any input in the process, and I agree that in the political climate of today, with the unbalanced US president posturing aggressively about his nuclear capability, the article should not be placed on the Main Page. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Whether an article is suitable for WP:TFA is not a criterion, as far as I know, in its acceptance as a WP:FA. It may also be appropriate to remind editors of not censored. TFA is not chosen on the basis of whether it will upset inhabitants of a particular nation (and I think Japan would have more cause for concern than the US...). If Hawkeye7 wants it to run, fine with me, although the coordinators (or Hawkeye) might wish to change the nominator above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- The objective of the review process is to improve the article, and given the current state of the article, I don't think that the reviewers' time would be wasted. If you could switch the nominators to Binksternet and myself, that would be appreciated. We can defer discussion of TFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Whether an article is suitable for WP:TFA is not a criterion, as far as I know, in its acceptance as a WP:FA. It may also be appropriate to remind editors of not censored. TFA is not chosen on the basis of whether it will upset inhabitants of a particular nation (and I think Japan would have more cause for concern than the US...). If Hawkeye7 wants it to run, fine with me, although the coordinators (or Hawkeye) might wish to change the nominator above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's in good shape. Of course the nominator is too new to have any input in the process, and I agree that in the political climate of today, with the unbalanced US president posturing aggressively about his nuclear capability, the article should not be placed on the Main Page. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Re sources: There are almost 300 citations based on nearly 100 sources. A quick glance indicates a number of issues, but before I undertake the sources review I'd like to be assured that the FAC is in the hands of editors ready and capable of addressing these issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm in. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ian Rose Sarastro1, probably more appropriate for one of you to change the nominators Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm in. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources review[edit]
Because citation numbers may change during this FAC, please note that my numbers quoted below are from this version of the article.
- Ref 34: you should add the work ("Wired")
- Ref 55: I don't think that Roosevelt and Churchill should really be cited as "authors" of this document, although they signed it – they employed drafters for such purposes. Recommend delete author details
- Refs 63 and 69: be consistent in how you format the publisher detais (AFHRA in one case, "Air Force Historical Research Agency" in the other. also, we don't normally include location in cite web particulars; "Tinian" is of no value and may cause confusion.
- Ref 115: You should name the publisher, which in this case is "Nuclear Age Peace Foundation" rather than nuclearfiles.org, whci is the "work=". There are other instances in the reflist of work being treated as publisher.
- Ref 116: Hyphen in p. range should be ndash
- Ref 137: I'm not sure why this citation needs the lengthy note. If this material is covered by what's in the source, it's unnecessary; if it comes from elsewhere it needs to be separately cited.
- It's from the source. Basically, it is there because different altitudes are cited in different sources. Like you, I was going to just leave the one that is most accepted, but other editors felt that we should explain why we have passed over other sources that are otherwise reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, but just a couple of things. At present the note doesn't have a proper beginning – it starts "...describes how varios values...". And I imagine that the ascription to Kerr et al. (2005) at the end needs to be cited. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ref 141: Lacks publisher information
- Ref 143: Per 115 above, publisher= Hiroshima Day Committee, work= hiroshimacommittee.org
- Ref 153: What makes this a high quality reliable source per FA criteria?
- Ref 154: The publisher appears to be "The Asia-Pacific Journal"
- Ref 155: The provenance is not clear from the details you provide. This is a transcript from a 1986 video: "HIROSHIMA WITNESS", produced by Hiroshima Peace Cultural Center and "NHK" whoever they may be
- NHK is Japan's national public broadcasting organization. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7](discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ref 157: Paywall, therefore (subscription required) template should be added
- (it's now 156) I can't access the article – I'm getting invitations to subscribe, on various bases. Perhaps it's not free in the UK?
- Ref 158: Lacks publisher information
- Ref 165: Hyphen in p. range should be ndash
- Ref 169: Link returns "page not found"
- Ref 172: "The Manhattan Engineer District" produced the report, but the publisher appears to be "Trinity Atomic"
- Ref 175: S/M Herbert Friedman is the author – is he also the publisher? If so, how does the source fulfil the quality/reliability criteria?
- Ref 176: Publisher not given. I'd say "Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum" is the publisher; the title insofar as I can make it out, appears to be "The Atomic Bomb dropped on Nagasaki"
- Ref 177: Not sure where this website comes from. There was a documentary series called "A Century of Flight" – is this related to that?
- Ref 178: Use caps in publisher name (see 194)
- Ref 189: self-published – why reliable?
- Ref 191: The page range format should be standardised
- Ref 205: Publisher needed, also a note that the language is Japanese
- Ref 208: Publisher is PBS (capitalised)
- Ref 212: Publisher is Atomic Archive, not National Science Digital Library
- Ref 229: Publisher details missing
- Ref 233: The proper form of the publisher's name is "Voices of the Manhattan Project"
- Ref 234: "Restricted Data" is not the publisher of this blog. You need to show why this is acceptable as a high quality, reliable source.
- Ref 238: who or what is "Yosha Research"?
- (now 231) What are his credential as a RS? Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ref 241: why add the quote from the source? That is the purpose of the citation
- Ref 246: link returns 404 error message
- (now 235) The main link is now OK, but the archive is returning an error message. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ref 264: Give the publisher's proper name (as you do in 269 & 273)
- Ref 274: Note language
- Ref 277: Link returns "page not found"
- (now 266) Still giving me page not found message
- Ref 278: Italicise the newspaper title, per 275
- Ref 279: The explanatory detail, and the wikilink, should be included in the first citation to this source
- Ref 281: The publisher is Sky News
- Ref 282: The name "CNN" should not be in italics as it is not a print source.
- But it's a news source, so the {{cite news}} template seems most appropriate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- (now 272) It may be a news source, but it's a TV station, not a newspaper, and shouldn't be in the template's "newspaper=" field. Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- But it's a news source, so the {{cite news}} template seems most appropriate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I've not yet finished looking at the sources ("references") list, but the above should be enough to be getting on with. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No further issues arising from the list of sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments by Nick-D[edit]
The manner in which this article was nominated was unfortunate, not least as the usual pre-FAC polishing hasn't occurred and the article is somewhat under-prepared for FAC. However, I'm pleased to see it here. I disagree with the views above that this article couldn't appear on the front page - it is eminently suitable for this, though it would be a vandal magnet. I have the following comments. The FA coordinators should note that I've made various minor edits to the article over the years, mainly to remove vandalism, and taken part in lots of discussions on the talk page.
- "The United States had dropped the bombs with the consent of the United Kingdom as outlined in the Quebec Agreement" - tense seems wrong, and this is a bit vague: how about "The United States dropped the bombs after obtaining the consent of the United Kingdom as required in the Quebec Agreement"?
- "The Japanese ignored the ultimatum" - "Ignored" seems a bit strong: there were rumblings inside the Japanese government to end the war. They just didn't do so: the article later states that the Japanese Government explicitly rejected the declaration.
- "The 1.25 million battle casualties incurred in total by the United States in World War II included both military personnel killed in action and wounded in action. Nearly one million of the casualties occurred during the last year of the war, from June 1944 to June 1945. In December 1944, American battle casualties hit an all-time monthly high of 88,000 as a result of the German Ardennes Offensive." - not clearly linked to the subject of this article - I'd suggest noting that this was leading to increasing desire in the US to bring the war to an end.
- "Along the way, the ratio of Japanese to American casualties dropped from 5:1 in the Philippines to 2:1 on Okinawa" - this implies a linear progression, which wasn't the case. The Allied forces in Burma and Borneo incurred much lighter casualties in defeating significant Japanese units, not least as the Japanese armies there were able to retreat which generally wasn't an option on the small Pacific islands. The Soviets were also able to destroy the Japanese forces in Manchuria with ease.
- "Although some Japanese soldiers were taken prisoner" - the number and proportion of Japanese soldiers surrendering was increasing rapidly at this time: many soldiers recognised that the war was lost, and the Allied troops had at last been persuaded to take prisoners. The home guard forces on Okinawa were particularly keen to get out of the war, though most were unable to do so.
- "By July 1945, the Japanese had stockpiled 1,156,000 US barrels (137,800,000 l; 36,400,000 US gal; 30,300,000 imp gal) of avgas for the invasion of Japan." - sits a bit awkwardly here. The use of "by" also suggests that the stockpile was increasing, when really it was a wasting resource.
- "On July 25, Nagasaki was put on the target list in place of Kyoto." - as the rationale for the selection of the other target cities is described, I'd suggest doing the same for Nagasaki
- "The leaflets caused such concern amongst the Empire of Japan" - non-professional wording ("Japanese Government" perhaps?)
- "Hiroshima was not listed.[91][92][93][94]" - are four references really needed for this fact?
- Do all the attendees at the Combined Policy Committee meeting really need to be listed?
- I'm a bit wary of the use of Truman's diary on the contentious issue of the bomb targets without discussion. Do secondary sources confirm that he really thought that they would be used only on purely military targets? - if so, was he mislead?
- "Having been fully briefed under the terms of Operations Order No. 35, the 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29 Enola Gay, piloted by Tibbets, took off from North Field, Tinian, about six hours' flight time from Japan. " - please tweak to clarify who was briefed (presumably the crew of the Enola Gay, and the other aircraft involved in the mission)
- I'd suggest noting what was going on in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. From memory, the museum there notes that one of the reasons casualties were so high was that lots of people were out in the open on a sunny summer morning, including significant numbers clearing fire breaks and seeing off a troop train at the main station.
- The 'Events on the ground' section for Hiroshima is unsatisfactory, as it presents what seems like a semi-random collection of facts rather than a narrative of what occurred. For instance, it's odd that it starts with a paragraph on the fate of a handful of of concrete buildings, and not the experiences of the people caught up in the bombing, and then name-checks various people. I'd suggest re-working this section to describe the destruction caused and affects on people on the ground (various sources describe columns of terribly wounded civilians), and then how the recovery efforts progressed over the day of the bombing and subsequent days.
- "Emperor Hirohito, the government, and the war council considered four conditions for surrender" - these have already been described
- "they headed" - please clarify who "they" is here
- "inside the fireball estimated at 3,900 °C (7,050 °F)[when?] and winds that were estimated at over 1,000 km/h (620 mph).[207][208][where?]" - I'd suggest addressing these requests
- " Because of the delays in the mission and the inoperative fuel transfer pump, Bockscar did not have sufficient fuel to reach the emergency landing field at Iwo Jima" - already stated
- Is the para which begins with "Following the mission, there was confusion over the identification of the plane" really needed? It seems like trivia.
- The 'Events on the ground' section for Nagasaki seems rather brief, especially in comparison to the blow by blow description of the strike mission. Unlike the section on Hiroshima, it doesn't cover the recovery efforts at all. I also don't understand why the experiences of a couple of the Allied POWs are privileged. I'd suggest restructuring this section along the lines of my comments on the Hiroshima section.
- On that note, I'd suggest trimming the material on the adventures of Bockcar - the blow by blow coverage tends to obscure the broader point of this not being a well conducted mission, and most of these details aren't significant in their own right (especially in comparison to the destruction of much of a city)
- "At least 35,000–40,000 people were killed and 60,000 others injured.[216][217][218][219]" - why is this referenced to four sources? Is this because estimates vary considerably? - if so, I'd suggest stating this.
- "Truman had secretly requested this on August 10" - why did Truman do this in secret, and what does this mean? (did he issue the order informally?)
- No, he gave instructions to the SecWar (Stimson), who told the CoS (Marshal). I presume it was secret because they didn't want the Japanese to know. What some people might find surprising is that Truman didn't order the atomic bombing; he was the man who ordered it to stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd suggest replacing the para starting with "There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs then in production for Operation Downfall" which largely comprises a quote from a primary source with a discussion of the evolving plans at this time. From memory, Giangreco states that it was eventually decided to stockpile the bombs to support the invasion (including through use against tactical military targets)
- The 'Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation' section is unsatisfactory: it is unduly focused on the Emperor, the content of his speech and his self-serving discussion with MacArthur when the cabinet also played a key role in these decisions, with cabinet ministers' motivations also being important.
- "During the war, caricatures depicting Japanese as less than human, e.g. monkeys, were common.[240] A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of "killing off" all Japanese people.[241][242]" - what's the purpose of this para? If it's to argue that the bombing was motivated by racism, this needs to be set out. The opinion poll result hardly seems to support such a notion though. More broadly, various sources argue that the atomic bombings were part of the evolution of Allied bombing tactics during the war and weren't motivated by anti-Japanese sentiment (Germans were fire bombed in almost exactly the same way as Japanese were, with the difference being that Japanese cities were far more vulnerable to this tactic)
- The material on filming and reporting of the effects of the bombs seems overly detailed. It would be much clearer and more effective if it was stripped back to a discussion of how news of the effects of the bomb on civilians was presented to the wider world.
- "Similarly, there was no censorship of the factually written witness accounts," - this was well after wartime censorship had ended. This section also seems to be debating itself over what was or wasn't 'censorship' versus editors choosing to not show things, which is rather confusing and largely irrelevant.
- "a poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans (22.7%) wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan" - seems very low actually, especially given the timing. The survey finding that 77% of Americans didn't support this notion seems rather more remarkable.
- The 'Post-attack casualties' section is unsatisfactory: it's focused on various assessments of the effects of the bombs on birth defects, and barely mentions the fate of the bomb survivors. It's odd that only US studies are highlighted, when there has also been significant research on the topic in Japan, including some early assessments by the Japanese Government.
- "Neel also studied the longevity of the children who survived the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reporting that between 90 and 95 percent were still living 50 years later" - was this a later study? It couldn't have been determined at the time.
- Was there only one 'double survivor'? The article mentions only one person, but then discusses these people in plural.
- " which resulted in the denial of the free health benefits to them" - who was denying this? The Japanese or (South?) Korean governments?
- "One figure of speech, "One hundred million [subjects of the Japanese Empire] will die for the Emperor and Nation",[287] served as a unifying slogan, although that phrase was intended as a figure of speech along the lines of the "ten thousand years" phrase" - out of place here
- Is it really accurate to refer to 'supporters' of the use of the bombs? My impression has been that various historians believe that the use of the bombs was a regrettable necessity, and this term makes it sound like they're enthusiastic. The notion that supporters "generally assert that they caused the Japanese surrender" also seems over-stated: my impression has been that such historians typically see the bombs as having a vital influence on the Japanese decision to surrender, but not being the only cause of this (virtually all the key Japanese decision makers knew the war was lost by 1944). Overall, this para doesn't really capture the views of historians who regard the use of bombs as being justified.
- "Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944, ordering the execution of Allied prisoners of war when the POW camp was in the combat zone" - this is referenced to a primary source, so does not directly support the claim here
- Counter Punch is being used to reference a topic which has been the subject of scholarly sources (and is debated by scholars)
- "The bombings were part of an already fierce conventional bombing campaign. This, together with the naval blockade, could also have eventually starved the Japanese into surrender. At the time the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army" - already stated, and the point being made here could be condensed and put more clearly.
Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the situation map and explaining the colours in the caption
- Several captions need editing for grammar - please review
- File:Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg: source links are dead. Which of the rationales from that tag are believed to apply?
- File:Three_Tinian_Joint_Chiefs.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Atomic_bomb_1945_mission_map.svg
- File:Hirgrnd1.jpg: this would need an expanded FUR and different tag to warrant inclusion
- File:Hiroshima_Street_Scene_with_injured_Civilians.jpg: when/where was this first published?
- Images using PD-Japan-oldphoto need to include info on original publication
- File:Bocks-Car-enlisted-flight-crew.png is tagged as lacking source and author info
- File:Sumiteru_Taniguchi_back.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Nagasaki_temple_destroyed.jpg.
Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim[edit]
I don't normally do milhist, and i claim no expertise, but having entered the fray above, I thought I'd better take a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- very costly invasion of the Japanese mainland.— the text implies that this is primarily in terms of lives rather than cash, should this be made explicit?
- Probably obvious to Americans, but as an ignorant Brit, it would help if it was made clear that Okinawa and Iwo Jima are Japanese islands
- Well, they are Japanese-controlled territories, but not geographically considered part of Japan. Iwo Jima is an uninhabited island in the Volcano Islands group. The US returned it to Japanese control in 1968. Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyu Islands, and was returned to Japanese control in 1972. Unfortunately, Iwo is not marked on the big map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- combatants in the legal sense— I think that's a little misleading; the Geneva Convention sense is members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered, perhaps clarify that this is the US interpretation.
- target insert —means??
- enormous casualties that an invasion of Japan might have involved.[279][6]—just happened to notice that refs are in wrong order (proves I did read it all too)
- I'm happy with the replies above, and I can't see anything terminal in the comments of more knowledgeable editors above, so I'm happy to change to support above. Great stuff. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi[edit]
- Frank 1999, p. 286–87. P/PP error.
- Six books (reprints, presumably) published too early to have ISBNs, fix with
|orig-year=. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC) - Gowing 1964, pp. 40-43, 76-79. Hyphen in pg. range;
- Jones 1985, pp. 82-84. Hyphen in pg. range;
- Jones 1985, pp. 82-84. Hyphen in pg. range;
- Allen, Louis (1969). Missing OCLC;
- Appleman, Roy E.; Burns, James M.; Gugeler, Russell A.; Stevens, John (1948). Missing OCLC;
- Asada, Sadao (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Bix, Herbert (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Coox, Alvin D. (1969). Missing OCLC;
- Coox, Alvin D. (1994). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Dower, John W. (1996). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Groves, Leslie (1962). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs
|orig-year=; - Hewlett, Richard G.; Anderson, Oscar E. (1962). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs
|orig-year=; - Kerr, George D.; Young, Robert W.; Cullings, Harry M.; Christy, Robert F. (2005). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Kido, Kōichi; Yoshitake, Oka (1966). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs
|orig-year=; Missing OCLC; - Knebel, Fletcher; Bailey, Charles W. (1960). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs
|orig-year=; Missing OCLC; - McCormack, Mary (2008). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- McNelly, Theodore H. (2000). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
- Scoenberger, Walter (1969). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs
|orig-year=; - United States Department of State (1960). Missing OCLC;
- Walker, J. Samuel (January 1990). Sort error, expected: Walker, J. Samuel (April 2005);
- Walker, J. Samuel (April 2005). Sort error, expected: Walker, J. Samuel (January 1990);
- Kanabun (2012). Kyoko; Tam, Young, eds.Inconsistent Location (84 with; 1 without); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
- Ogura, Toyofumi (1948). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs
|orig-year=; Missing OCLC; - Warren, Stafford L. (1966). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose by EddieHugh[edit]
I'll explain what I see as being the main problem with the article in its current form, then give some illustrative examples and end by stating the two options that could lead to improvement.
This is the main Wikipedia article on one of the pivotal (set of) events in recorded human history. There are other more specific articles on the same topic, but this is the central one. It is also the main Wikipedia article on the military aspects of the bombings. If the article is to cover both of these things (being a general article about the only use of atomic weapons; being specifically about the US military bombings) successfully, then a huge amount needs to be covered.
I'm a big admirer of the Military History WikiProject; it's the best one that I've come across. Inevitably, however, editors who are heavily involved in one project tend to see articles from the perspective of that project, and such is the case with this article. A huge amount needs to be covered in this article, and a huge amount of the military history is covered, but a lot of the essential non-military history facets are entirely or largely absent.
Some examples... the lead states "The atomic bombings' immediate and long-term consequences for military strategy [...] human health, and international relations, as well as their impact on the social and political character of subsequent world history and popular culture, have been extensively studied." This is a good summary, but it's a summary of the real world, not this article. I see almost nothing on international relations or subsequent world history, nothing on popular culture. I add: almost nothing on rebuilding; almost nothing on memorials; nothing on Japan's domestic and foreign policy; nothing on other countries' policies; nothing on attitudes to atomic weapons in Japan or elsewhere.
Continuing, the focus on the US military bombings infuses the article with a strong US bias. The lead states "Over the next two to four months, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 people in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day". I read through "Events on the ground" and see some images of victims and a paragraph on 20 American military personnel, but nothing on tens of thousands who died of acute effects over the next 2–4 months... I read on, maybe it's in "Events of August 7–9", but that's more military stuff. Then it's Nagasaki... "Events on the ground" gives the post-bombing civilian dead one sentence. Eventually, I reach "Post-attack casualties"... this must be the section, but no, it's on a different subject. So, tens of thousands died after the bombings, and this merits one sentence. (Maybe I missed more, but not much, I'd guess.) In reading through, I note a 10-sentence paragraph on a US plane landing and a 6-sentence paragraph on a US journalist having trouble finding out what number had been assigned to a plane. This contrast in level of detail is grotesque.
In short, in its current state, this is a richly detailed military history article that is trapped inside a more general article. I see two options: a) split off the military history parts into a new article and leave a summary of them in this article, in the normal way, then nominate that new article; or b) add a lot of information about the non-military aspects of this very important topic, while toning down the US-centric presentation. It can't pass as it is. Referring to the formal criteria, the article fails 1b ("comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context") and 1d ("neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias") by very wide margins. EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- We've already implemented solution (a). This article is purely about the bombing. International relations and subsequent world history, and popular culture are all out of scope. They have their own articles: Nuclear warfare, Nuclear disarmament, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Nuclear weapons in popular culture. I have removed the offending sentence from the lead. The thousands that died after the first day died from trauma and burns. I will add some material on rebuilding and memorials. I was intending to do this when the article was prematurely nominated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The article is almost purely about the bombings, but shouldn't be. Option a) has not been implemented: this article, as mentioned, is the main one on everything to do with what happened. It also being the main one on the military aspects is a problem (unless option b is implemented, which would mean a lot of work). The bit you cut from the lead is/was a summary of what the article should contain, not an "offending sentence". None of this is new: the things I mentioned above were largely encompassed by the three opposers (including me) last time (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive1) and appear periodically on the talk page too. The content and balance might, I agree, look fine to the eyes of the military history WikiProject, but that's not the target audience for this, the broadest article we have on such key events in human history. EddieHugh (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The article is purely about the bombing. The other articles handle post-World War II aspects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Where's the broad article that covers the whole topic? If there isn't one, then this must be it (based on the title), which falsifies "The article is purely about the bombing" assertion. EddieHugh (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the case. Just because we don't have an article on a subject doesn't mean that material has to be incorporated into another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- So is your belief that Wikipedia does not have a general article on the atomic bombings? EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is the article on the bombings. We carefully limited its scope to make it manageable. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the "general article" you have in mind was never written because it was not possible to define its scope. Nuclear warfare, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Nuclear weapons in popular culture have aspects of it, but they too are limited in scope to make them manageable, and they are all about post-1945 events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- We have Death, God, War... and Sea, Middle Ages and Germany are FAs: we can find a way to define the scope of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that it is as broad in coverage as its title implies and as its nature demands. EddieHugh (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- We tried to give it the narrowest title we could. The article you're describing would be a WP:COATRACK for things like the nuclear weapons policies of Australia. I'm willing to add another section (eg Legacay) , but I'm not willing to WP:TNT the article. So that leaves us with option (a). I create a stub called Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in history and memory, which becomes the "general" article, and we proceed with this article as the article on the bombing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I can't think of a more general title, to encompass all facets of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". If the military facets are to be the focus of an article, then it could be given a more specific title, such as "Military missions to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki", leaving "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as the general one, to which the necessary other aspects would be added. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Before we wind up the review, I would still like to know what facets of the bombing are not covered by the article. Remember that military history is the study of armies and wars, so most are likely to fall within the scope of WP:MILHIST. I know a lot about Nuclear warfare, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't have a lot to do with it, as they were soon overtaken by subsequent events. If there is anything that can be done to improve the article, it can be worked on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I included a list of some things in the fourth para of my initial comment, above. I have to stress, though, that if the military aspects are not to be split off into their own article (and I haven't seen an argument against this), then the level of military detail and US-bias in the article as it stands would have to be greatly reduced: just adding more facets wouldn't be enough. EddieHugh (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- The argument against forking is that the entire article as it stands is about the actual bombing, so it is our article on military historical aspects. You're welcome to create a new article on ahistorical aspects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps there could at least be a NavBox added that encompasses the topic of atomic weapon uses against Japan? There's a NavBox for the Manhattan Project, but it has a different focus. Praemonitus (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- The argument against forking is that the entire article as it stands is about the actual bombing, so it is our article on military historical aspects. You're welcome to create a new article on ahistorical aspects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I included a list of some things in the fourth para of my initial comment, above. I have to stress, though, that if the military aspects are not to be split off into their own article (and I haven't seen an argument against this), then the level of military detail and US-bias in the article as it stands would have to be greatly reduced: just adding more facets wouldn't be enough. EddieHugh (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Before we wind up the review, I would still like to know what facets of the bombing are not covered by the article. Remember that military history is the study of armies and wars, so most are likely to fall within the scope of WP:MILHIST. I know a lot about Nuclear warfare, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't have a lot to do with it, as they were soon overtaken by subsequent events. If there is anything that can be done to improve the article, it can be worked on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I can't think of a more general title, to encompass all facets of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, than "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". If the military facets are to be the focus of an article, then it could be given a more specific title, such as "Military missions to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki", leaving "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as the general one, to which the necessary other aspects would be added. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- We tried to give it the narrowest title we could. The article you're describing would be a WP:COATRACK for things like the nuclear weapons policies of Australia. I'm willing to add another section (eg Legacay) , but I'm not willing to WP:TNT the article. So that leaves us with option (a). I create a stub called Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in history and memory, which becomes the "general" article, and we proceed with this article as the article on the bombing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- We have Death, God, War... and Sea, Middle Ages and Germany are FAs: we can find a way to define the scope of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that it is as broad in coverage as its title implies and as its nature demands. EddieHugh (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- This is the article on the bombings. We carefully limited its scope to make it manageable. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the "general article" you have in mind was never written because it was not possible to define its scope. Nuclear warfare, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Nuclear weapons in popular culture have aspects of it, but they too are limited in scope to make them manageable, and they are all about post-1945 events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- So is your belief that Wikipedia does not have a general article on the atomic bombings? EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's not the case. Just because we don't have an article on a subject doesn't mean that material has to be incorporated into another article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Where's the broad article that covers the whole topic? If there isn't one, then this must be it (based on the title), which falsifies "The article is purely about the bombing" assertion. EddieHugh (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The article is purely about the bombing. The other articles handle post-World War II aspects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The article is almost purely about the bombings, but shouldn't be. Option a) has not been implemented: this article, as mentioned, is the main one on everything to do with what happened. It also being the main one on the military aspects is a problem (unless option b is implemented, which would mean a lot of work). The bit you cut from the lead is/was a summary of what the article should contain, not an "offending sentence". None of this is new: the things I mentioned above were largely encompassed by the three opposers (including me) last time (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/archive1) and appear periodically on the talk page too. The content and balance might, I agree, look fine to the eyes of the military history WikiProject, but that's not the target audience for this, the broadest article we have on such key events in human history. EddieHugh (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@FAC coordinators: Please close this review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.