Talk:Battle of Sio/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
An article this length should have a lead of two to three paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead, "would exercise an important effect on the course of the war against Japan." I'm not sure on the use of "exercise" in this context. Perhaps just "have an important effect"?
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background, "was to hold act as a rearguard". Is "hold act" a typo, or just military jargon I'm not familiar with?
Done No, it was an error. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics, "made available a couple of trawlers". Why not just say "two trawlers", or however many it was, instead of the vague "a couple"?
Done Where I come from, "couple" always means "two" but this could be a cultural difference; changed as per your suggestion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortification Point, "a CMF formation". Please spell out the acronym, it's not one familiar to non-Australians. Also ANGAU, AASC and AAMC.
Done

Fortification Point, "was halted near the Lagoon." The capitalization seems to imply a certain landmark to which we have previously been introduced, but I see no other mention of a lagoon (although I may have missed it).
Done

In a couple of places you mention x number of Japanese killed, y found dead. How did the troops know the difference between the ones killed and the ones found dead? Bullet holes? What did the ones found dead die of? Disease, malnutrition, suicide?
Done Yes; it's not an exact science though. Added a few words. Hawkeye7 (talk)

Saidor, "encountered at Weber Point and formal attack made." Should this be "a formal attack made"?
Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Why is the Yoshihara, Tsutomu ref the only book ref that doesn't use the split reference format?

The Drea ref is listed as "MacArthur's ULTRA" in the split refs and "MacArthur's Ultra" in the References section - please standardize.

Would it be possible to make it explicit that the AWM archive refs are from the Australian War Memorial. Most people outside of Australia won't have a clue what AWM is..
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also ref #13 (USACE: X-78 E-20-1), please give the agency explicitly.
Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'm surprised that there is no aftermath section, as the article seems to end rather abruptly. I assume that the running battle was seen as a rousing Australian success by all sides, but then what happened?
Done. Added an Aftermath section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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):
I'm a little confused about the licensing for File:PT boat New Guinea 1943.jpg. The author is given as the US Navy, but the permission tag says it is of Australian origin - which is it?
Both. Because it was taken in Australia (the Australian New Guinea Territory) it falls under Australian copyright law, which means that it is in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article. There are a few prose, reference and image things that need tweaking, and I have one question about the coverage of the article. However, none of these issues should take long to fix. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things look good, so I'm passing to GA status. A couple of things for A-class or FAC - the lead could still stand to be longer, as I see you just split up the existing content rather than adding new. The three paragraphs now look rather skimpy. Also, in the Aftermath section, "shrewd" in the context of MacArthur's intuition sounds rather POV - unless this is specifically stated by the source it should probably be removed. However, the article looks like good GA-class material - nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]