Talk:Operation Forager logistics/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 09:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Background

• You should specify that the 3,200 mile distance was from Hawaii to Saipan

  Y Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• I get the comparison to the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, but why compare Operation Forager to Operation Husky? Why not compare it to any other campaign in the Pacific? The two seem unrelated to me.

  Previous operations in the Pacific were not corps-level. This would become normal in the Pacific after this operation, with even larger operations mounted against Leyte, Luzon, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. I can delete it if you feel it is not relevant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: You should mention this in the article. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 07:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Y I added "It was the largest amphibious operation of the Pacific war to that date." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: Everything looks good. Congrats on the GA! PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 07:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Naval logistics

Shipping

• "staff study" refers to a study by a military general staff?

  Y A naval one. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• "2nd 1st Amphibian Truck Company", is this correct?

  Y Typo. It should be the 2nd Amphibian Truck Company. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• "Vice Admiral" isn't attached to any name

  Y Ooops. It was Kelly Turner. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Food and water

• All good

Fuel

• "It was estimated", the navy estimated this?

  Y Briggs. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• In "USS Saranac, Neshanic and USS Saugatuck", should it not be "USS Saranac, Neshanic and Saugatuck" so that USS isn't over-repeated?

  Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Link San Pedro, California

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ammunition

• "The risk was very real.", is this necessary?

  It is a bridge between the two paragraphs to make the text flow more smoothly for the reader. Re-written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Aircraft

• All good

Salvage

• All good

Medical

• USS is again repeated with "USS Relief, USS Solace (AH-5)"

  Y Another typographic error. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Link Guadalcanal

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ship-to-shore

• "the situation went from bad to worse", MOS:IDIOM?

  Y It is not on the list, but re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Base development

Saipan

• Inconsistent date format with "September 13, 1944"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Tinian

• All good

Guam

• Link to Chester W. Nimitz

  Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• After reading the article, I think the lead sufficiently summarizes the whole thing

  What additional things should the lead say?

  The lead is good as it is.

References

• All sources seem to be reliable

Spot checks

• 1 – Y
• 10 – Y
• 14 – Y
• 18 – Y
• 26 – Y
• 38 – a, Y; b, Y
• 49 – Y
• 50 – Y
• 58 – a, Y; b, Mention of the hospitals are on page 502, not 501
• 62 – This doesn't give a page number to where this information is located
• 65 – Y
• 69 – Y
• 70 – Y
• 71 – a, Y; b, Y
• 72 – This doesn't give a page number to where this information is located
• 77 - Y

Fns 58 and 62 - the Seabee brigade war diaries - don't have page numbers in the text. So I have added the page numbers in the PDF files. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Overall

• Article is neutral
• Article sufficiently covers the topic and stays on topic
• Earwig picks up a lot of long proper nouns, but everything else is fine.
• Article is stable
• All images are properly licensed and suitable captioned PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Hawkeye7: Great article! Very well researched and comprehensive overview of an overlooked aspect of war. I left some comments for the review that need to be addressed. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 09:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.