Talk:Battle of Isurava/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 05:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Progression

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

Initial comments

• The battle could use a map to aid the readers understanding – my plan is to draft something when I get a chance (sorry I know I’ve agreed to this in the past but haven’t got around to it yet).
  • No rush, thanks for taking this on. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
• Wikilink Alola, Eora Creek, and Wairopi.
• Background section could probably include a bit more for context, for instance:
  • “the Australians, who had deployed only limited forces north of Port Moresby…” Perhaps the reasons for this could be presented briefly for context? i.e. limited resources available prior to redeployment of 2nd AIF from the Middle East etc.
  • “…although the two 2nd AIF battalions did not deploy forward of Myola immediately…” Maitland (p. 57) makes the point that although considered “veteran” the 21st Brigade had recently returned from the Middle East and was inexperienced in the jungle warfare. This might be included for further context.
  • Maitland (pp. 57-58) provides a bit more on the Australian supply situation and how it limited the ability to concentrate the arriving 2nd AIF forces quickly stating: “a very disturbing shortage of supplies precluded its concentration, and it was fed into the fighting by companies as they arrived. Maitland lays the blame for this on the Australian higher level command, writing: “The failure of headquarters back in Port Moresby to have made adequate arrangements was the major contributing factor”. I wonder if this assessment might be relevant somewhere?
  • The state of the Australian defenders due to disease also seems to be relevant and is mentioned in a few works on the battle. For instance Maitland (p. 57) “The condition of the Australians, particularly those who had been on the Trail for some time, was not good. They were half-starved, continuously wet, lacking a blanket, wearing boots which were rotting off their soft pulpy feet, and they were physically exhausted.” Coulthard-Clark (p. 222) “Although the Australian resistance was becoming increasingly better organised and the Japanese beginning to feel the strain of there own extended supply line, the effectiveness of units involved in the defence was noticeably reduced through exhaustion and sickness entailed in operating over such harsh terrain.”
  • “Lacking artillery support…” – would it be profitable to discuss the reasons for the Australians’ lack of artillery at this stage of the campaign given its impact on it? Horner The Gunners pp. 336-337 briefly covers the limited artillery resources available in Papua (centred around Port Moresby in support the garrison there) at the start of the campaign, then states that “as the Australian militia infantry met the first Japanese thrust towards Kokoda the artillery could not be moved forward to support them”. Following the arrival of 2nd AIF reinforcements he states: “Following soon after was Major-General Allen, GOC 7th Australian Division, the 21st Infantry Brigade—veterans of the Syrian campaign a year earlier. At this stage they were not joined by their artillery…” He then alludes to the impact this had when he discusses the situation on the Kokoda Track states on p. 341: “There the militia battalions, and then the 21st Brigade, without artillery support, had been driven back in one of the great epics of Australian military history.”
• Battle section:
  • Wording seems a bit awkward here “…Lieutenant Colonel Hatsuo Tsukamoto's 1/144th, even though they had been in combat almost continuously since the initial Japanese landing in mid-July, was given the task of leading the assault…” perhaps consider flipping it to: “Lieutenant Colonel Hatsuo Tsukamoto's 1/144th was given the task of leading the assault, even though they had been in combat almost continuously since the initial Japanese landing in mid-July…”
  • From Maitland (p. 57) “The Japanese realised that the 39th was being reinforced and increased their assault force to six.” I think you allude to this here: “Japanese commander—realising that the Australians had brought up reinforcements—decided to commit the one of the battalions he had been holding back in reserve.” Is that right? Should the info from Maitland be worked in here as it seems to more explicitly state the size of the force and therefore provide more context? (suggestion only)
    • G'day, I actually think Maitland's description is a little inaccurate. Keogh (p.207) also says six, but Anderson and Williams (which are more recent works) clarify that it was actually four inf bns, with two supporting battalions (1 x engineer and 1 x artillery), which have been conflated by earlier works as "the equivalent of six infantry battalions". I've tried to make this point in the Opposing forces section, but if you think it needs to be clarified further, something could potentially be added at this point. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • “The speed with which the 1st/144th attacked caused Horii concern…” I’m assuming the “slow speed” – should this be clarified?
  • Is there a typo here: “…requested permission to withdraw to the Isurava rest house, about 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) back along the track was given…”?
  • Aftermath:
  • “further actions were fought around Templeton's Crossing and Efogi in the early days of September…” Maitland (p. 57) characterises these as “a week-long flighting withdrawal which forced the Japanese to deploy and assault every feature that was capable of being defended”. Something along these lines might be relevant for readers in order to understand how the subsequent delaying actions fit into the broader campaign.
• References:
  • some inconsistency in presentation of isbns (hypthens vs no hypthens);
  • some inconsistency in the presentation of locations in the references field (some include state some don’t, for instance "Sydney, New South Wales" vs "North Sydney (no state)")
  • some inconsistency in multiple page citations, for instance “Williams 2012, pp. 65 & 70” vs “Williams 2012, p. 74 & 112 (i.e. "pp" vs "p"). Anotherclown (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for these, points, I think I've addressed most of these now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
      • They look pretty good, I just tweaked the bit from Horner here [3] - pls amend if you disagree. Anotherclown (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Technical review

• 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 Kokoda 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 link to be removed.

Criteria

• 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 overall looks to reflect the sources available.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major aspects seem to be covered that I could see.
  • 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.
  • "It is now thought that the casualties were roughly equal for both sides".
    • I’m not sure this is the best way to put it. I agree that in the context of the wider campaign these figures are roughly equal but this description lacks nuance and is not really how the source cited describes it (it states: “Nor did the casualties inflicted by either side favour the Japanese”). Excusing my brief descent into OR the Australians lost approx. 200 men as casualties, while the Japanese lost approx. 370, which is 185% or nearly double the losses of the outnumbered defenders despite the Japanese having the considerable advantage of artillery support. Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to amending this part as what is currently there, although broadly accurate, seems a bit sterile and stilts the tone.
  • This leads in to my only real remaining criticism. Overall, I think the article does a good job providing an overview of the strategic context, the events of the battle, the aftermath, and the subsequent actions; however, I can’t quite put my finger on it but the significance / assessment of the battle seems to be lacking something to me (and this is mirrored in the lead I think). The stand at Isurava in many (admittedly Australian) sources has long been seen as an epic, and although you do cover this, the focus seems to be on more recent reassessments, which whilst probably more balanced and worthy of coverage, I’m not sure this approach fully reflects the tone of sources overall).
  • For instance there are many assessments along the lines of Maitland (p. 57) “The fighting at Isurava was very bitter and heroic on both sides. There were heart-wrenching examples of mateship and battalion loyalty. Private Bruce Kingsbury won a posthumous Victoria Cross in this fighting. The casualties inflicted on the Japanese far exceeded the Australians’ strength, but the Japanese pressure was such that, eventually, on 30 August, the Australians had to withdraw…” Specifically the theme of outnumbered defenders, successfully delaying the advancing Japanese, and inflicting heavy casualties on them etc. This is in many ways related to my cmt above about casualties. To me the achievement of the defenders in a tactical context still seems significant considering they were outnumbered and lacked artillery support (i.e. imposing delay, attriting the advancing force, and frustrating the Japanese commander’s main objective by withdrawing intact), even if the battle is now rightly viewed as a Japanese victory (albeit one which failed to achieve its main objective). I concede that the article does cover all of these things and in a fairly balanced manner; however, it seems to do so in a very dry, factual, way that just leaves me with a perception of something being missing. Some suggestions that might address the issue:
    • Perhaps include a summary / brief assessment in the lead, i.e. Japanese victory but failed to destroy the defenders who were able to inflict heavy casualties on the them and successfully withdraw in contact etc.?
    • Perhaps include something in the lead about the significance ascribed to the battle in Australia?
    • Address the issue of the presentation of casualties in the aftermath section per my cmt above (as I think this will help slightly alter the "wise after the fact" tone overall).
    • Perhaps include a paraphrasing of Maitland’s assessment in the body of the article?
    • Also the website "Into the Mountains" observes that the Australian attempt to withdraw in contact was “partially successful” and I wonder if this should also be included (somewhat unrelated point)?
      • All my points have been addressed here.  Done Anotherclown (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• 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:

  • This article is looking good to me, just a few more points added above, mostly re tone, one image needs alt text too. I don't think major changes are need just a little more in one or two areas. Of cse as always I'm happy to discuss anything you don't agree with. Also I'm still working on the map (sorry its taking awhile as I'm just not happy with it, I'll definitely get it done though). Anotherclown (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • G'day, I think I've addressed most of the above comments. Going to have to go to bed now as it is way too late here now, but I will try to come back tomorrow night and address anything that is still outstanding; if you could take a look before then and let me know what still needs to be done, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Passing now. Those changes look very good to me. I've added the map now so pls have a look over it and let me know if you need anything altered. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)