Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Admiralty Islands campaign/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 20 February 2010 [1].

Admiralty Islands campaign[edit]

Admiralty Islands campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

One of those articles that has it all! Narrowly failed to get promoted last year but back for another attempt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Source for the TF Brewer OBs should be cited in a footnote.
  • Provide a link for 1st Cav Div and any other units that might already have an article. Spell out ANGAU and provide a link the first time it's mentioned, not the second.
    • 1 Cav Div is linked in the second line. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of ground units seem to be American. Please provide clarification in the text
    • That the majority of ground units were American? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out Seaman 1st Class, don't abbreviate it.
    • I can't. It is part of a quotation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said this: so ANGAU arranged for them to be rationed by the Americans., but I think you meant something like "provided rations by the Americans"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I meant that ANGAU arranged for the Americans to provide the natives with rations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text is present, but there are a few small problems; please read WP:ALT#Verifiability and consider whether some of the details you mention are really verifiable for a non-expert from the image alone. Ucucha 13:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Altered a caption. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Made some further edits; alt text is good now. Ucucha 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Only a few brief points:
    • The Outlying Islands section could possibly be reworked into larger paragraphs as at the moment it consists of a lot of 2 sentence paragraphs. Just seems a little choppy at the moment.
    • The lead sentences could possibly be reworked, specifically bolding "Admiralty Islands campaign (Operation Brewer)" seems a little inapproprate... maybe the lead could be reworked to mention that the campaign was codenamed Operation Brewer or something without including it in parenthesis in the lead sentence.

Anyway thats it for me for now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a great article, and I have only a few comments:

  • It should be noted that the Combined Chiefs of Staff decided to neutralise rather than occupy Rabaul in August 1943
  • The first paragraph in the 'Analysis' section is presently unreferenced.

Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Very well-done. Question: You mention that the victory against odds was the result of air superiority. Do you think that AirSols' reduction of Japanese air forces at Rabaul, and the consequent withdrawal of the remainder of those forces by 20 February 1944 (just prior to the assault) merit a mention? It would explain how that superiority was achieved. Kablammo (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea! I think it also helps explain the notion that the Admiralties had been evacuated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks good (but I had supported in any event). Excellent article. Kablammo (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: looks very good to me. I couldn't find anything to fault. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, this article appears underlinked, and there are numerous terms that should probably be redlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal policy on redlinks is that I will use a redlink only when I intend to later create the article (VII Amphibious Force), or someone else has already redlinked the article, indicating their intention to create an article (M8 4.5 inch Rocket). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:RED, my take is that we should redlink anything that meets notability, to encourage growth of the encyclopedia; that would seem to be best practice in our best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Admiralty_Islands_campaign/archive1&oldid=1090412338"