Talk:Battle of Finschhafen/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Progression[edit]

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Initial comments[edit]

  • AS casualties in the infobox don’t seem to match those in the article (which states “the Australians lost 73 killed, 285 wounded” for the first phase alone). Infobox says 49 killed and 179 wounded, which seems to just be those during the Japanese counter attack. Perhaps figures for both phases could be included (by phase)?
  • From the article “The total number of Japanese in the area was around 4,000 to 5,000.” Is the fact that Allied intelligence had incorrectly assessed Japanese strength in the Finschhafen area as much lower than this relevant here given the impact this had on the release of shipping for Australian reinforcements later in the campaign? It is mentioned to later though so I’ll leave it up you guys to decide where works best.
    • The 350 estimate came from Ultra via GHQ. The 2,100 estimate came from New Guinea Force via POW interrogation. Both were simply passed on to 9 Division. Poor intelligence estimates were a serious problem here; but they became a regular event in SWPA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also are there figures available for the Allied estimate of Japanese strength? (I’ve seen 2,000-3,000 in one source but most of my books are still in boxes following a recent move so can’t nail it down at the moment. I can find something though if req’d).
  • “…during which significant actions were fought around Katika and Siki Cove.” Should Siki Cove be listed before Katika as I’m fairly sure it came first chronologically (Katika being inland from Siki Cove where the first and second waves landed in error).
  • Repetition in prose here? “supported by the 2/12th Field Regiment as well as engineers from the 2/3rd Field Company and artillery from the 2/12th Field Regiment” (is there a reason to mention 2/12th Field Regt twice here?)
  • “The 2/3rd Pioneer Battalion remained in the beachhead…” wikilink 2/3rd Pioneers here (not later where you do)
  • “Heavy rain fell around this time, the Australian brigade commander…” is there a word missing between the comma and the “the”?
  • Should some mention of AS casualties due to sickness also be included (probably gives the reader a more accurate idea of the challenges of fighting in New Guinea). For instance from the limited sources I currently have available to me Coulthard Clark Encyclopedia of Australia's Battles (2010) p. 243 lists another 391 evacuated sick (on top of 73 killed and 285 wounded). While the figure in Grant A Dictionary of Australian Military History (1992) p. 124 for the same period is slightly different listing 301 evacuated due to illness.
    • Added 391 from Coulthard; suspect the discrepancy relates to those that returned to their units. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph related to the capture of Finschhafen itself seems a bit vague to me, and it is only in the next section (“Japanese” counter attack”) that its capture is actually mentioned. The article currently states “the forward troops from the 20th Infantry Brigade reached their objective…” which I presume is Finschhafen but I wonder if this should be spelt out more? Couldn’t more detail be provided about the 20th Brigade’s attack on the town on 1 October which doesn’t seem like an insignificant action? For instance Grant p. 124 states: “Aided by air strikes and artillery from 2/12th Field Regiment, the battle around the outskirts of Finschhafen lasted all day. During the night most of Japanese had managed to withdraw inland and the town was occupied after a short fight during the afternoon.”
  • Coulthard-Clark pp. 243-244 assesses “ Japanese losses had been heavy, but it was know that the bulk of enemy forces had merely yielded the coastal strip and were assembling in the west in preparation for contesting the Australian gains.” Should something along these lines be included here (i.e. final paragraph prior to “Japanese counter-attack” section)?
  • Should there be a paired comma after “That day, the bulk of the Japanese 20th Division, under Shigeru Katagiri…”?
  • “…until a stock pile of stores and ammunition could be compiled in sufficient quantities.” One word for “stockpile” according to the Macquarie dictionary.
  • “The main Japanese counter-attack began on 16 October, signalled by a large bonfire on Sattelberg.” Do we know why a bonfire was used? I presume they had only limited radio communications. Is there anything available on this topic that might allow it to be covered in more detail? For instance it probably explains the command and control difficulties the Japanese experienced co-ordinating their counter-attack with the premature launch of the central drive.
    • Not sure about this and haven't yet found an explanation. I suspect you are right, though. I don't have Pratten 2014 at the moment (on its way from the library), though, and think that maybe a couple of the footnotes might explain it (maybe notes 31 and 36?). Not sure, do you have this book, AC? If you do, would you mind taking a look? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the source for this? It isn't in Tanaka. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pratten pp. 267-268: [3]. I can't see the footnotes, though, in Google Books view, but I suspect 31 and 36 might provide some explanation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • G'day - unfortunately I don't have the Pratten source either. It's not a big issue for me though, if there isn't any information available in the other books on the topic then that is fine. I'll try to locate my copy of Bravery Above Blunder though and see if anything is mentioned there just in case. Anotherclown (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have my trib copy. FN 31 is a translation of Japanese 20th Division Operation Order No. 329. FN 36 refers to the 9 Division Report on Operations and the 22nd Battalion War Diary. I have them here too.
              • Japanese 20th Division Operation Order No. 329: "X day will be decided on X-1 day at 2200 and a fire will be seen for 20 minutes on the Satelberg Heights.
              • 9 Division Report on Operations: "All units of 9 Aust Div had been ordered to post sentries to watch for fire on Satelberg, which according to 20th Div OO was to indicate an X-1 day. No such fire was observed, and since it rained heavily all night 15/16 Oct, it is doubtful whether the fire was ever successfully lit, and quite certain that few if any return fires were lit in acknowledgement".
              • 22nd Battalion War Diary: "16 Oct 2030 B Company reported large fire observed on Satelberg. Reported to Division."
            • All I can say is that the Japanese had radios down to company headquarters, and that they did on occasion make use of visual signals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for looking into this, it looks like there isn't anything in the sources covering the reason for this explicitly so no problems leaving it as it is. Anotherclown (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were subsequently cut up badly..." this might seem a bit euphemistic given what transpired during the Japanese attack at Scarlet Beach (i.e. the attack was almost completely destroyed with many of the Japanese killed or wounded)
  • Is there a typo here: “as the Japanese attempted to retake it against,[48] fierce resistance…” (potentially delete “against”)?
  • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of isbns (some with and some without hyphens). Anotherclown (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Think I got these. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for taking a look. I'm without quite a few of the books I used for this, too, so might be a bit slow in responding to some of your points. (I've tried to a order a couple from the library, but they can take a while to get up to Darwin). Hopefully Hawkeye can help, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The initial changes you both have made look good to me. I hope to have some time tomorrow to go through it again and post the rest of the review then. Anotherclown (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review[edit]

  • Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action req'd)
  • Disambiguations: no dabs - [4] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: No dead links - [5] (no action req'd).
  • Alt text: Most images have alt text so you might consider adding it to the capture of Finschhafen map for consistency - [6] (suggestion only, not a GA req)
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [7] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed.

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Prose looks good following changes made after initial cmts.
    • No MOS issues that I could see.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the sources available.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major aspects of the topic seem to be covered that I could see (I had another flick through Bravery Above Blunder, as well as Grant and Coulthard-Clark's summaries of the battle and couldn't see anything which stood out as missing).
    • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No POV issues.
    • All significant views are covered.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
    • Images are appropriate for article and are PD and have the req'd documentation.
    • Captions look ok.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
    • I made a few minor tweaks [8], otherwise the article looks to me to meet the GA criteria so I am passing this now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Finschhafen/GA1&oldid=774887656"