Talk:United States war plans (1945–1950)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll take this one. It is a biggish article, it may take a few days to work through it all. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Lead
- All war plans assumed that the war would open... To avoid close repetition of "war", suggest replacing "the war" with "conflict".
Background
- Bush did not think it was possible to build a missile like the V-2 but with 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) range. This reads oddly, perhaps "Bush did not think it was possible to build a missile like the V-2 but having a range of 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km)..." Also suggest clarifying that the V-2 was a weapon of Nazi Germany.
- Would the sources support a general statement to close out this section along the lines of "A series of war plans were developed over the next several years for dealing with any conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States and its Allies."
Pincher
- Suggest clarifying that mobilization entails increasing the size of the standing army (the 113 divisions mentioned in previous section) to ensure no confusion between that number and the increased number of divisions in this section.
- linked to the article on mobilization. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- ...forcing a retreat into Spain. A retreat for who?
More to come. Zawed (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Still with Pincher:
- The most likely region for this was the Middle East,... suggest replacing this with hostilities
- The possibility of recapturing Scandinavia was considered... this is the first mention of Scaninavia. Perhaps the previous paragraph needs to mention the Soviets moving north in Europe?
- was codenamed Caldron, and dealt with the Middle East. suggest "...which was codenamed Caldron and dealt..." Also just checking this isn't meant to be Cauldron?
- Done. Double-checked it against a second source to ensure that it was not a typo. Apparently, wikt:caldron is the US spelling. I blame Webster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Given the limitation of the Soviet fleet in the region,... the phrase "in the region" is also used in the previous sentence, suggest rephrasing.
Pincher finished, will move onto Broiler. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- As an aside, isn't this something of a change of pace for you? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Broiler
- Although the Pincher studies were not accepted as a war plan... I am struggling to understand this because the Pincher section says it was a "basic outline war plan".
- The Joint Strategic Plans Group also drafted ... use the abbreviation
- Presumably the same scenario as Pincher applies, the Soviets would overrun Western Europe apart from Spain? It may pay to reiterate here given the final few sentences of the Broiler section discuss this
- The Soviet Union was expected to have developed nuclear weapons by 1952,... suggest replacing expected with envisaged to avoid repetitive language
- To secure the United States,...} suggest a paragraph break at this point due to the change in focus of the existing paragraph here
- An additional Army unit was created in May 1948... it is not clear what the nature of this unit and those of the USAF were? Delivery, assembly, special weapons?
- ...to the bases in the Middle East whose bases? Would this be the proposed base in Karachi?
- many mothballed cargo ships might want to link mothballed
- ...Broiler, Frolic and Charioteer no context for Frolic at this point, that only comes later
Halfmoon
- Royall, was particularly disturbed... it is not clear to me what he is disturbed about the use of nuclear weapons or Truman's position
- In three successive sentences starting with this one It concluded that aircraft production there is multiple use of "requirements"; suggest this be rephrased to avoid the repetition
- I think the table needs a source and could it be placed to one side, like an image?
Offtackle
- But Field Marshal Lord Montgomery reported in June 1949 that the Rhine could not be held. It seems like something is missing here. I think you are implying that despite NATO's formation, the Rhine still could not be held.
- Montgomery's role needs a little context to explain his advice/opinion
Outcome
- To build up the ground forces,... suggest "To build up US ground forces..."
References
images
- I think GTA Porta di Brandenburgo.jpg needs a US tag? The others look OK. Zawed (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
That's it for me, apologies for the length of time taken. Zawed (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)