« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Tinian

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Battle of Tinian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After the Battle of Saipan comes the Battle of Tinian. It isn't as well known as Saipan, but it was an important part of the Mariana Islands campaign. It was mostly a US Marines show, but the other services were heavily involved. The battle is a good case study of the process of command decision making. The island eventually became an important base for B-29 bombers and in August 1945 the atomic bombing missions were launched from there, which is what it is best known for today, if at all. There is plenty written about it though, and the article could have gone much deeper into the fighting.

If someone wants to complete the Operation Forager trilogy by fixing up the Battle of Guam (1944), that would be great. I am not going to, but I am intending to take this one to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

This article is in good shape. Please see my comments below:

• The first para of the lead should establish which countries the battle was fought between. " the island joined Saipan and Guam as a base for the Twentieth Air Force." is also unclear given readers may not know that this was an American unit or its significance

  Added who it was fought between. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought I had better mention it in the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead could also be clearer about the purpose of the invasion - e.g. that the island was a key element of the plans for the air attacks on Japan

  The purpose of the invasion was to cut the Japanese line of communications. Tried to make this point more clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Another rationale for the capture of the Mariana Islands emerged with the development of the long-range Boeing B-29 Superfortress bomber." - this is a bit unclear. I'd suggest noting in this para that B-29s could reach almost all worthwhile targets in Japan from the islands, which is why they were so strategically important

  Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'strategy' section should start with a para or so on Tinian's status at the start of the war and by the mid-1940s. Readers don't learn until the next section that it had long been Japanese territory and that it had a largish civilian population.

  Added a paragraph on this. It is of course covered in detail in the article on Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a couple of sentences about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Do modern historians use the term 'comfort women'? It seems an awful euphemism.

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yetch. I'd personally use something else anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the condition of the Japanese garrison? E.g. had any of the units seen combat before, were they well supplied, etc? My understanding is also that the Japanese attempts to reinforce the islands were greatly disrupted by submarine attacks - did these reduce the intended size of the garrison? It might be worth noting somewhere that the Japanese were well aware that the US wanted the islands as strategic bomber bases and regarded their defence as a top priority.

  The submarines attacks did not affect Tinian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anything be said in the second para of the 'United States' section about the condition of the Marines? I imagine that while the troops were worn out by the fighting on Saipan they would have almost all been combat veterans

  This is covered in the second paragraph of "United States". I have added a bit about their previous service. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Counterattack' section is written from the perspective of the Americans. Can anything be said about the Japanese decision making here and/or the experiences of the Japanese troops?

  This has been added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto the 'Tinian taken' section. This section raises the question of why the Japanese garrison didn't surrender and fought it out to the last against an obviously vastly superior force

  Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The 404 Japanese who were captured is also a fairly high ratio for Japanese forces in the small island battles - 5% or so of the garrison. Can anything be said about the circumstances of their capture and who they were?

  Only a little bit. My opinion is that the island was not that small, that many Japanese became isolated and left to their own devices, and the presence of civilians may have been a factor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On Saipan, 1,780 prisoners were taken. This was more than the United States had taken in all the battle of the war up to that point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest checking the sources, but my understanding is that 'Marines' is usually capitalised in US works when referring to groups of individuals serving in the USMC

  They do but we don't. (MOS:MARINE) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Between 1 August 1944 and 1 January 1945, the 8th Marines lost another 38 killed and 125 wounded; 542 Japanese soldiers were killed" - can more be said about this fighting? The number of Japanese killed after the island was secured is startling high.

  Unfortunately not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the many horrific elements of the fighting on Okinawa was the mass rapes of Okinawan civilians by Japanese troops. The article notes Japanese troops killing civilians on Tinian, but do the sources also discuss sexual assaults?

  Astroth has a whole chapter on the subject, but it lacks any specifics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The last para of the article should note that the air units on Tinian represented a high proportion of the force that attacked Japan.

  Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be good to add material with historians' assessments of the battle. From memory, some consider it the best-conducted amphibious operation of the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're remembering Howling Mad Smith's assessment, from Coral and Brass. I will add a paragraph on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added an analysis section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wtfiv

Great article! I must say, I feel awkward reviewing one of the most veteran and skilled editors in this section of Wikipedia. I also know my style is not in line with the more typical style; most are probably too long. Getting a sense of your experience, I can have confidence you'll be gracious about them though. So here they are:

• Geograph

• • ¶ 1. I may be wrong, but I think Magellan only landed on Guam. He may have informally claimed it, but not Tinian. I think the islands were not formally claimed until 1565 by López de Legazpi.

    Y You are right. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 3. For the beach descriptions, the white beaches are saved for last, but only its location is given. The beaches in ¶ 2 are the best beaches, and the yellow beaches are bad because of cliffs and surf, but the properties of the white beaches are not given. Given their importance, shouldn't that aspect which made them unappealing as invasion sites be mentioned?

    Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Last paragraph. Consider replacing "it" it had a population with a more definite noun as it is the topic noun of the paragraph. I was unsure of what "it" was. (For instance, a reader may think it is Tinian town until it was mentioned. Perhaps "Tinian" or "the island"

    Y Replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Note added a bit later) As I was working through the pre-assault bombardment section, I thought it may be worthwhile to mention the distance of Tinian from Saipan. This is relevant in terms of the pre-assault bombardment. It also gives the reader a sense that the logistics of the invasion was more of a hop, (unlike the invasion of Saipan.) (Maybe it can go in the last paragraph of the previous section, Strategy?

    Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Japanese
  • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I understand why Kakuta gets first paragraph. He is the most senior officer, and in order of battle he'd go first. But I think his relevance to the rest of the narrative puts him later. It seems to me that the actual defenders should go first. Mention of Kakuta seems like he should be more of an afterthought as he mainly spent his time avoiding the fighting. My own thought is he should go after ¶3.
  • ¶ 2. The information on the 135th infantry is unclear because the invasion of Saipan has not been made explicit in the article. The reference to an 11 June amphibious landing making the unit available on Saipan would be clear if the reader knows that this was the beginning of the aerial attack on Saipan which froze the Japanese forces in place.

    Y Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 2. Minor suggestion only. The total number of forces, their readiness and moral seem like the topic of this paragraph, this go in the first sentence or after a sentence explaining that Ogata is in command? (And in line with my earlier suggestion, maybe this whole paragraph should be the first.)
  • ¶ 4. The opening of this paragraph is unclear because the article has not mentioned that the Saipan invasion preceded the invasion of Tinian. It should be clear if this point is made explicit.

    Y tried to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 4. Comment only- no action requested. The sentence and point is fine and it can stand. But to me, this page reads like Morison's personal opinion (note comparison to the revolution. I wouldn't challenge Morison as an authority, but I'm not sure I agree with his opinion. I think other sources may come up with other reasons why the Japanese fought. I think Ogata, like a good soldier following orders, had no choice. The "fight to the death" was Japanese government policy, not that of the soldiers–many of lower class with probably little sense of being samurai– or Ogata per se. Also, in the Battle of Saipan article, I was going to reference the code of bushido too, but digging in, the fact that Japanese soldiers fought to the death seemed more complicated than following the code of bushido. It seems the rank and file had a militarized education of the 1920 and 1930s played a role with what most Westerners would call brutality played a role, The enculturation of the importance of social face, the Emperor cult, and the religious aspect of being deserving of memory in Yasukuni Shrine all could be argued for.

    Y Deleted this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• American
  • ¶ 4. There's a lot of detail and information in this paragraph, so I'm not sure adding more would be useful. But another reason intelligence about Tinian was excellent was because the Grasshopper observation planes had been scouring the Island for the 531st Artillery and XXIV Artillery Corps. (Consider Crowl, p. 271)

    Y added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 5. Consider rewording What the intelligence reports revealed was that the best landing beaches were around Sanharon Bay but they were also the most heavily defended. to "The intelligence reports revealed..."

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 6. Consider deleting the first sentence Turner had plenty to say. Start the second with "Turner noted..."

    Y Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 6. I find the discussion a bit confusing. I'm pretty sure that the northern beaches include both Yellow and White beach. But then it sounds like the Yellow Beaches because of the exposure to weather, but most likely both Yellow and White were thought to be too small to land forces of the size contemplated.

    Y Already noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 8. Minor suggestion only. Consider putting the detailed challenges of White beach up in the Geography section, and in this section it just summarize the challenges and how they would be surmounted. I think moving some of the measurement details to the appropriate area in Geography would help the reader keep more focus on the narrative, which is focusing on solutions to the problem.

• Bombardment
  • ¶ 1. I think it is important to mention that the artillery bombardments were taken place even as the fighting on Saipan continued. This is implicit to those who know in discussing the 531st.

    Y Already noted above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. I think the XXIV Corps Artillery began shelling around the time they were first deployed around 22 June (see Crowl 133). It might be useful to let the reader know that the XXIV had also been constantly bombarding Tinian long-term.

    Y Added that the XXIV Corps Artillery began commenced firing on Tinian on 20 June. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 3 or thereabouts. You are very thorough in your description of aerial bombardment, you may want to also mention the USAAF's 19th Fighter Squadron on Aslito Field that started bombarding Tinian on its first day on Saipan on 22 June (consider Crave and Cate, p. 690–691) again highlights that it might be useful to note that the bombardment and recon by forces on Saipan was ongoing even as Saipan remained an active combat zone.

    Y Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 4. I think damage to the Colorado and Norman Scott may need context. Readers may like to know they were damaged as part of a fairly major diversion on the South beaches.
  • Minor suggestion only. The diversionary section on Saipan may merit more discussion. Unlike the Battle of Saipan where the diversion was almost token, the diversion on Tinian was substantial, involving warships, and has been argued to keep the main Japanese forces focused on the southern beaches.

    Y The feint is covered below. I have moved the paragraph up to give it more context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Landing
  • ¶ 3.packs behind on Tinian. Did you mean Saipan?

    Y Whoops! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 5. It might be helpful to the reader to clarify why the Doodlebugs were needed. Ideally United States ¶8 or Geography ¶3 might help. As currently written United States ¶8 is ambiguous that the beaches were unfriendly for vehicles to get off the beach.

    "The Doodlebugs allowed the Marines to scale the low cliffs around the White Beaches."

  • ¶ 5. Shouldn't the damage to the Colorado and Norman Scott be included in description of the feint?

    Y Moved the information on the feint up to this section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 5. Minor suggestion only. Consider moving the feint to the first paragraphs of this article. It would put the ship action together with this paragraph, and would allow a less interrupted flow of the White Beach material.

    Y Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 7. alter ones. I'm not sure what is meant here.

    Y Typo. Corrected to "later". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Counterattack
  • ¶ 1. Would it be helpful to the reader to make the doctrine clear (i.e., repulsing the attack on the beach)?

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 3. In the center of the American needs the word "line" after it.

    Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 3 consider changing Marines. They divided into two groups to "Marines, and divided. It resolves the ambiguous anaphor of the pronoun by elimination.

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Drive South
  • ¶ 1. Minor suggestion only. For Moving north along the coast Consider "as they moved north"...makes it clear the move was in progress when it was held up. ("Moving up" feels to me like the hold up occurred after the action was completed.

    Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 1. charaterized misspelled. (I could've corrected it myself, but experience with negative experience with reviews makes me hesitate.)

    Y I don't mind. Some reviewers like to keep at arms length. Words like this get misspelt because I expect the spell checker to flag them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weather Break
  • General Comment on section. This has lots of details on damage, repair and supply. Did it have any effect on the advance of the troops in the field?

    None that I am aware of. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ¶ 4. Capitalize town Tinian town

  Y Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tinian taken
  • ¶ 2. machine gunned twenty Japanese needs a hyphen.

    Y Um, okay. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysis

• • Comment only- no action requested. I would agree that Tinian was an outstandingly executed invasion, particularly the outflanking of the Japanese forces with the assault on White Beach. But, I think quoting the opinion Holland Smith is problematic. The quote comes from his memoir account, which seems full of justification. In this case, implying that an operation he played an important role had achieved perfection just before he was taken out of direct combat command, in part as fallout from the Smith vs. Smith mess on Saipan. This bias makes the reliability of his opinion questionable. Though Hoffman p. 122 cites Smith, Hoffman's following paragraph carefully qualifies Smith's superlatives a bit. Prefer's analysis on pp. 169–173 seems more balanced and less POV. Yet, it is a famous quote, one that has become part of the Tinian story, and so is reasonable to put in a Wikipedia article.

    I followed the same reasoning. I am accustomed to the upbeat tone characteristic of American accounts. What is really unusual about Tinian was how accurate the intelligence was. I've gone over campaign after campaign where despite, or possibly because, of Ultra, the Japanese strength was grossly underestimated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mopping up
  • ¶ 1. sector, two days later delete comma. It makes remainder a bit clearer.

    Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Military government
  • ¶ 3. Minor suggestion only. Would you consider a substitute for cater? It has strong connotations of a professional social event and "catering to someone's demands" has the negative connotating of unnecessarily giving in to an unreasonable demand.

    Y Changed to "care". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Base development
  • ¶ 3. I'm not sure the barge name of YOGL adds information to the narrative, unless the meaning of YOGL is spelled out and interesting in some way.

    Y deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Wtfiv (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think that covers it for me. Support. Wtfiv (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

I'll try to get to this over the coming days, but I'm less familiar with this operation than the ones around Guadalcanal, so I should be considered a non-expert reviewer for this one. Hog Farm _Talk 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guadalcanal campaign is the only part of the Pacific War that is well-covered. Unfortunately, the editor who did it was indef'ed back in 2016.

• "Nimitz and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Rear Admiral Forrest P. Sherman a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, DC, on 7 March 1944, and were questioned by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General George C. Marshall, and the Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief, Admiral William D. Leahy." - this sentence is missing a word

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Their small size of the White and Yellow beaches made them unattractive" - do you mean The small size ..."?

  Y Yes,. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Roads were approximately 18 feet (5.5 m) wide and surfaced with crushed coral." - per the source, this is referring to the primary road network; I would recommend clarifying this

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are Sunharon Bay and Sanharon Bay the same thing?

  Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the Landing section; will hopefully continue tomorrow. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "At Saipan, aerial photography had been restricted in fear that the Japanese would be alerted and the element of surprise would be lost; Tinian demonstrated that this was not the case" - this seems a bit strongly worded. This wouldn't really conclusively demonstrate that aerial photography wouldn't alert defenders of upcoming attacks because the Japanese knew the attack was coming and just guessed wrong on which beaches it would hit

  Y Re-worded to "Aerial photography of Saipan was restricted through fear that the Japanese would be alerted and the element of surprise would be lost; whereas aerial photography of Tinian was unrestricted but surprise was not sacrificed." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bosworth needs the publisher listed

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto with Jones and Schmidt and Turner

  Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The first Youtube external link makes sense to me to include as an official military production, but I'm less convinced about the value of including the other two as external links

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden

There are, by my count, twenty-six images in the article. A lot of these are very clearly simple ((PD-USGov)) works, and I don't think there's much point listing those here unless there's a problem in documentation (though, honestly, there's only a few images I had nothing to say about in the end). The only one not some form of USGov is File:Map of the Battle of Tinian (1944).svg, which is user-made (and a featured picture). CC-licence (perfectly fine)

There is one problematic image:

File:75mm pack howitzer is fired into a Japanese-held cave on Tinian.png - No source given. It's also uploaded by Hawkeye7 fairly recently, so I'd like to hope it's trivially fixed.

Added the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that sorts the issue. While there are points below, A-class does not generally cover images at the level of detail I do, so I think at this point, we can say it Passed image review. Now, if you want it to pass image review with a higher grade, the rest of the points are valid, but they're probably beyond the A-class and even FA-class criteria, because article editors aren't expected to be image experts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not great reproductions, but that's a quibble

File:White Beach 1 on Tinian.jpg and File:White Beach 2.jpg are not great reproductions. The article would be improved as a resource if we could find the originals, but if this is what we have, it's fine. It seems a shame to have what are probably the two worst images in the article right away, though.

We don't have the originals, but there are alternative versions at [1]. I uploaded the White Beach 1 image from there. I am unsure if the one of White Beach 2 is better or not. I found other images of White Beach 1 and White Beach 2. Maybe replace them with these? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:White Beach 2 on Tinian.jpg isn't contemporary to the battle. At a guess, I'd say that was around the year 2000 or later. Probably not particularly relevant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher resolution trivially available

The U.S. Navy has very high resolution copies of their images readily available; we're using medium -res ones for unclear reasons. I don't think this matters for A-class, but if we can do better, we should.

• File:80-G-284248 Tinian Flag Raising Ceremonies, August 1944.jpg
• File:USMC 87615 Marines load supplies aboard two LSTs in preparation for the assault on Tinian.jpg
• File:80-G-253605 USS Iowa fires a salvo during the bombardment of Tinian.jpg
• File:80-G-432851 TBM Avenger bombers prepare to take off from USS Monterey (CVL-26) to attack targets on Tinian.jpg

• Three versions at [[2]] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Tanks on beach tinian lg.jpg
• File:80-G-307883 USS LST-340 at pontoon pier on White Beach 2.jpg
• File:80-G-239297 U.S. Marines move across the wreckage of the Japanese airfield at Ushi Point.jpg
• File:USMC 87909 Marines cautiously probe a cave on Tinian.jpg
• File:USMC 87927 Marines stack mortar rounds in preparation for firing a fast barrage, on Tinian.jpg

I'll get this when I next have a chance, especially as some of these are potential featured pictures. I can't see how this would change the copyright status, though. That said, since you upload a lot of the images for these articles yourself, Hawkeye, talk to me sometime and I'll walk you through this. The TIFFs will display fine on pages, so there's not much reason not to just upload them as opposed to a lower-res JPEG, and if more work is to be done, well, it's still better to have the original uploaded.

I uploaded the jpegs because in the distant past I had trouble with really large tiffs. I also trimmed a couple of of them. The tiff versions can always be uploaded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

• File:Amphibious tractors move in and out - Tinian.jpg

  Dead, I'm afraid. Archive.org unable to archive properly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's fine, just best to fix it when it can be. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Japanese tank knocked out of action - Tinian.jpg

  Repaired link rot. I uploaded another image taken shortly afterwards. Let me know if you think it would be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that's actually a zoom-in of the exact same photo. On the whole, I like the cropped version better, though. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Tinian Airfields 1945 Looking North To South.jpg - Technically, no explicit link given, but I'd say there's enough of a description I'd probably pass it to some extent.

  Found the image at the Truman Library. It appears that there were multiple copies of this photograph. It may have been handed out to aircraft to help them identify the island. It would be nicer if there were a better scan though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no reason to think they're problematic images, but this is something to at least attempt to fix before FA attempts.

Colour changes

File:Doodlebug portable ramp.jpg is sepia in the source. I'm not sure why it was greyscaled - it was eating a LOT of visual detail. See, the thing about sepia is that the combination of saturation and level makes fine detail more visible. I've changed it to the original.

Mea culpa. I changed it to greyscale when I downloaded it. I was not aware of the advantages of sepia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this image is one of the least-well documented of the images. It doesn't appear elsewhere on history.navy.mil - I think it's detailed enough, though; it's from the Seebee Museum and no indication is given by the US Navy that it's not a U.S. Navy picture. -Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Also: if you think that one of the other images is a better choice for the infobox, let me know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good images in this article. Now, there's two ways I like to choose an infobox image:

1. If people are looking for an image of an article's subject, the first one they're likely to click on is the infobox image. If it's very bad, they may stop using Wikipedia as a source for images for that subject. So there is a case for leading with a high-resolution image.

2. That said, it's also important that the image draws the reader in who's not interested in image reuse at all. The first image is going to get used widely; for example, it's likely to get attached to any TFA or On this Day run on the main page - they don't generally go digging deeper down the article. So a low-resolution image that's exciting can readily win out over a dull high-res one.

But the biggest rule is that it must be a good exemplar of the article's subject, so I really need to go through the article properly so I can kind of get a better feel for what's important and what's tangental. For example, File:USMC 87615 Marines load supplies aboard two LSTs in preparation for the assault on Tinian.jpg is a fantastic image, but too far off from the battle to really work as an infobox. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Hi Hawkeye7, some comments:

• Link to Saipan on first use instead of second?

  It is linked on first use (in the Strategy section) (the Lead doesn't count). However, I have weeded out several other dups.

• Isn't the convention for milhist articles to have the name first, and then the icon indicating if they were wounded, imprisoned MIA or KIA?

  Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "At Cairo Conference": "At the Cairo Conference"?

  Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to Imperial Japanese Navy in lead?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Line of communications in linked in lead, consider linking in body on first use?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Seabees turned the island built six 8,500-foot (2,600 m) runways for": if I am correctly understanding this, do you mean "The Seabees expanded the six runways on the island to 8500 feet (2600 m) for"?

  Deleted "turned the" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the 37mm gun used by the Japanese on Tinian the Type 1 37 mm anti-tank gun?

  Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to 18th Infantry Regiment (IJA)?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the 120mm gun the Type 10 120 mm AA gun?

  Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the 12 cm gun the Type 10 12 cm dual purpose gun?

  Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Were the 75 mm mountain guns used the Type 31, 41 or 94?

  Type 94. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Were the 155 mm guns the 155 mm gun M1?

  Yes. Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the second link to destroyer in the bombardment section?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider adding the use of napalm for the first time to the lead? Seems notable.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "and they transports headed": "and headed" would be better.

  Corrected as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The latter were": remove the "were"?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "cut the Americans on the summit off": "cut off the Americans on the summit"?

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Link to Merrit A. Edson?

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "division could return": replace the could with to?

  Corrected as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "in that it the": remove the "it"?

• Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider adding the following categories? Battles of World War II involving the United States, Battles of World War II involving Japan.

  Category:Mariana and Palau Islands campaign already contains those categories. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hawkeye7, one last minor comment: In Olsen 1950 and Taylor et al 1950, the correct surname of James C. Olsen is Olson, consider changing? Other than that, happy to support for promotion to A class. Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'll get to this sometime over the next week. Hog Farm _Talk 22:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reliability concerns with the sources and formatting is acceptable. Searching in various places brought up no major literature that I could find that isn't used here. I'll do some spot-checks; hopefully tomorrow or Friday. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks

• [15]b, Hoffman p. 5 - OK "Ushi Point had a hard-surfaced runway 4,750 feet (1,450 m) long"
• [83], Hoffman pp. 69-71 - OK "The nighttime actions had depleted the 4th Marine Division's ammunition, so Cates delayed attacking on 25 July until 10:00 to allow time to replenish. In the meantime, the rest of the 2nd Marine Division began landing."
• [102], Hoffman p. 107 - issues. Article has As they advanced, the marines encountered civilians and Japanese soldiers waving white cloths. The latter had to be approached with care, as sometimes one of their number might decide to suicide and take Americans with him. while Hoffman has occasional enemy riflemen and numerous Japanese civilians who advanced waving white cloths signifying their desire to surrender. The latter had to be carefully watched lest one of their number turn into an enemy soldier bent upon destroying as many Americans as possible before meeting death himself. So the article has the soldiers as the suicide mission threat, while Hoffman has that as the civilians

  Y Whoops. Re-written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [57], Raines p. 251 - the source text is referring to an aircraft deployment during the battle for Saipan - how do we know that this state of affairs still existed for the Tinian fighting?

  Y It's in the next footnote. Four new airplanes were received on 20 July making a total of nine planes available for assignment (one plane was lost 23 June). Moved the footnote back a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [7], Cate p. 547 - OK "From the Mariana Islands, the B-29s could reach all the most significant industrial targets in Japan, and they could be supported by sea."
• [126], Melson p. 32 - OK " It departed for Okinawa in April 1945, but the 17th and 18th Antiaircraft Artillery Battalions remained to defend the airbases"
• [139], Harwood p. 31 - OK (image caption)
• [44], Moore p. 82 - page range should be expanded to include p. 81, where the 10 May date is found.

  Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - some minor issues on the spot-checks. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]