Talk:Operation Forager logistics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is currently a featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes. |
 | Operation Forager logistics has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 8, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that logistical support for Operation Forager involved calling forward ammunition ships to replenish the fleet despite almost daily Japanese air attacks? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 09:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
( )
- ... that logistical support of the World War II Mariana Islands campaign involved calling forward ammunition ships to replenish the fleet despite almost daily Japanese air attacks? Source: Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil, p. 151
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Frank W. Lehan
- Comment: Fun fact: The skipper of an ammunition ship never goes down with his ship. If something goes wrong, he goes up with the ship, not down.
Moved to mainspace by Hawkeye7 (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 450 past nominations.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
All good. Also approving, so that the promoter can decide upon their fave linking organisation, ALT0a: ... that logistical support of Operation Forager involved calling forward ammunition ships to replenish the fleet despite almost daily Japanese air attacks? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Forager logistics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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
- 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)
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)
- @Hawkeye7: You should mention this in the article. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 07:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
Naval logistics
- Shipping
- "staff study" refers to a study by a military general staff?
- "2nd 1st Amphibian Truck Company", is this correct?
- "Vice Admiral" isn't attached to any name
- Food and water
- All good
- Fuel
- "It was estimated", the navy estimated this?
- In "USS Saranac, Neshanic and USS Saugatuck", should it not be "USS Saranac, Neshanic and Saugatuck" so that USS isn't over-repeated?
- Ammunition
- "The risk was very real.", is this necessary?
- Aircraft
- All good
- Salvage
- All good
- Medical
- USS is again repeated with "USS Relief, USS Solace (AH-5)"
Ship-to-shore
- "the situation went from bad to worse", MOS:IDIOM?
Base development
- Saipan
- Inconsistent date format with "September 13, 1944"
- Tinian
- All good
- Guam
- Link to Chester W. Nimitz
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.
- What additional things should the lead say?
References
- All sources seem to be reliable
- Spot checks
- 1 –
- 10 –
- 14 –
- 18 –
- 26 –
- 38 – a, ; b,
- 49 –
- 50 –
- 58 – a, ; 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 –
- 69 –
- 70 –
- 71 – a, ; b,
- 72 – This doesn't give a page number to where this information is located
- 77 -
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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- 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.