# Talk:Indian Ocean raid (1944)

I've just moved this article back from Second Indian Ocean raid to Japanese Indian Ocean raid (1944). The basic problems with the title were 1) this wasn't the second Japanese incursion into the Indian Ocean - Japanese merchant raiders operated in the Indian Ocean during 1942 and 1943 and Japanese submarines continuously operated in the area 2) accordingly, no sources I've seen called the raid covered in this article the 'second' raid - it's normally simply referred to as a 'raid'. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've recently moved First Indian Ocean raid back to Indian Ocean raid for similar reasons. I support your move.  Dr. Loosmark  08:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Ocean raid (1944)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Background, "Japanese Combined Fleet withdrew from its base at Truk in the Central Pacific and was divided". "Withdrew from" is an action that the JCF took, "was divided" is something that was done to it - should be consistent.
Fixed
Background, "all prisoners other than radio operators" Why were radio operators spared? (I'm assuming it has something to do with using them to break codes or send out false messages, but we may want to make this more clear...or I could be completely wrong!)
They were to be interrogated for useful information - I've clarified this
Raid, "through the Sunda Strait on   March." I think we have part of a date missing here...
Fixed
Aftermath - Do we know what happened to the survivors who were sent to the work camps?
Amazingly enough, they all seem to have survived the war - I'd added this.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Do we know when the photographer of File:Aoba Catapult Trial.jpg died? The tag that is used on the image specifies public domain "50 years after the death of the creator" - but it is quite possible that the creator of an image taken in 1938 was still alive in 1961.
I've replaced the photo with a US Navy image
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Overall very nice. A few prose niggles and one image question; once these are resolved I think the article should be good to go for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your review. I think that all your comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good, so I'm now passing the article to GA status. Thank you for the prompt responses! Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian Ocean raid (1944). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014171352/http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67913 to http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67913
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Batavia, which is derived from the Netherlands language and was used to apply to the first settlers, is NOT Java.  After obtaining independence, Indonesia renamed Batavia the city, to "Djakarta".
Tanjung Priok is NOT near Java, it is on Java.  In Indonesian Tanjung means "Cape". Priok is the name given to the Cape, but also the harbour of Djakarta.
The use of the abbreviation "NEI" may lead to confusion.  "NEI" is the abbreviation in the English language of "Netherlands East Indies".
Foegive me for offering these corrections, but as I was born on the island of Madura, just North of Surabaya in 1932 and lived on Java until 1947, I still speak some Indonesian.  If you wonder, yes, I was held in Japanese Camps during the war.  In sequence, I lived in Batu (East Java), Bandung and Batavia (West Java). 184.147.197.109 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)