Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Goodenough Island/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2017 [1].

Battle of Goodenough Island[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Australian amphibious operation during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Readable, compact account of a battle that turned out to be harder than expected. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This reads smoothly, and I could find little to quibble about. I made a few minor edits here. Please revert any that seem misguided. Here are a few suggestions or questions:
Background
  • " Important features were often missing from maps, and some features had different spellings." – Logic? Feature A's spelling would naturally differ from Feature B's. Maybe this would be better: "Important features were often missing from maps, and the spellings of feature names sometimes varied from map to map."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aircraft and ships headed from Milne Bay to Buna and vice versa had to pass near Goodenough Island, so an Allied presence on the island could provide warning of Japanese operations while denying the Japanese the opportunity to observe Allied ships and aircraft. – Tighten prose by changing ", so an Allied presence" to "; thus Allies" and "could provide warning" to "warn"? "So" is the wrong connector here because it implies that the ship movement brought about the Allied presence.
    "Thus" doesn't work for me; maybe the copyeditors can explain why. Split sentence in two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus" is a bit stuffy in this context. The split is fine. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prelude
  • "After makeshift airstrips were cut through the grass, four of them were able to fly out again." – What happened to the fifth?
    It crashed on landing and was written off. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Battle
  • "It was planned to trap the Japanese..." – Delete "was"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 6 miles (9.7 km) away" – Round to 10 km since "about"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had some wounded men on board, resulting in further casualties." – Logic? Does this mean that those wounded men were wounded again by the aircraft? Or does this mean that the aircraft attack wounded other men? Or both?
    Deleted "It had some wounded men on board". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Base development
  • "before the base was wound up " – "was closed" rather than "was wound up"? Finetooth (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good. Switching to support on prose as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Auntieruth

  • A few minor issues:
same as Finetooth (above), and:
  • does gruelling really have 2 ls? (is that Aussie-speak?)
    Standard English (but also the Australian variant). The l is duplicated when the -ing suffix is added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • do these ships normally have whaleboats? Or is a whaleboat something other than what I'm thinking it is?
    Only on a whaler, but as the whaleboat points out, they have long been used in amphibious operations. There was a search of Australia for suitable small craft to use in New Guinea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gatewood could not get through on the radio because the petrol generator that supplied power to the radios at Mud Bay had broken down, thereby cutting Arnold's link with Mud Bay, Milne Force and Taleba Bay. The failure of the petrol generator that powered the radios cut Arnold's link with Mud Bay, Milne Force and Taleba Bay. (or something. if he was at Mud Bay and using their radios, then his link wasn't cut with Mud Bay. Or was it?)
    It's the way a radio network works. The set at Mud Bay was more powerful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, Japanese aircraft strafed the Australian positions, as well as the ketch McLaren King in Mud Bay. It had some wounded men on board, resulting in further casualties. In the absence of air cover, Japanese aircraft strafed the Australian positions and the ketch McLaren King waiting in Mud Bay with wounded men aboard, resulting in further casualties. ?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • so the pace of construction work was lifted. what does this mean? quickened? or stopped?
    More Army talk. To lift the pace means to accelerate it. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also did a couple of minor edits here. Feel free to revert. I'll be ready to support..... auntieruth (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an edit conflict, but I have made sure the changes are still there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Nikki, thanks for taking a look. Adjusted with this edit: [2]. Is that better? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks better, but should be done using |upright= rather than px per WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have set them to |upright=1.5, which makes them the same size to me, as my default image size is 300px (very small). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by JennyOz

Hello, a few minor questions/suggestions, I haven't made any edits

Sorry, have added a couple of clarifications to my clumsy original comments...

Sorry Hawkeye, 'my bad', what I was getting at is that dissect refers to what a scalpel does, whereas intersect can be "to divide into parts", (which I expect original author meant)
  • rain forest - one word?
    Two is the normal Australian form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • McLaren / Maclaren
    Maclaren. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroyed its radios" - sounds ambiguous ie whose radios, the stranded Japanese or own?
    Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "offshore with a some degree of shelter" - remove 'a' or 'some'?
    Deleted"a" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bombing and strafing of native villages by the Allied Air Forces" - sounds like intentionally trying to kill nationals
    Not sure how to handle this one. Later in the war they would buzz native villages to let everyone know they needed to clear out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it must have been collateral / unintended consequences - (unless of course the villages were 'occupied' by enemy so strafing them was intentional). Maybe at "The bombing and strafing of native villages by the Allied Air Forces" simply delete "of native villages" to remove the horrid implication?
  • "The rest of No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron arrived..." - 'rest of' confused me as previously worded as "No. 5 Mobile Works Squadron RAAF"
    That's them. The name changed in July 1944. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Australians were crossing a creek that was in front of a steep hill. The Japanese commander waited until the Australians were almost at his position before opening fire with machine guns and mortars. The troops who had crossed the creek found hand grenades were being rolled down the hill at them; those behind it were pinned down by heavy and accurate fire. Arnold decided to pull back.[23] That night, he formed a defensive position, and beat off a small Japanese counterattack.[24]" - a) no casualties? b) 'counterattack' - had Allies attacked since creek incident or 'another attack'?
    Changed "counterattack" to "attack". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
casualties? it says "accurate fire". I was trying to work out where the rest of the 13 were killed
  • "Two died from malaria in November 1942, and another, Shigeki Yokota, was taken prisoner in July 1943.[32]" - who had lived with locals for 9 months?
    No, just evaded capture, living in the jungle and scrounging food from native gardens. The Papuans were strongly anti-Japanese. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
but Yokota was nabbed and kept by locals from Oct 42 til they handed him over (per content blurb at bottom of the ajrp interrogation ref)
  • "but caused no damage and only wounded two men" the placement of 'only' sounds dismissive of those 2 blokes - maybe '... and wounded only two men'?
    Fair enough. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meanwhile, a four-man survey party from No. 5 Mobile Works Squadron RAAF arrived on Goodenough Island on 3 January 1943." - previous section speaks of March 43 so 'meanwhile' sounds odd, maybe '... RAAF had arrived on Goodenenough...'
    Deleted "meanwhile". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about military history but found this very readable. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know. We often have trouble with military jargon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support:
    • All tool checks ok (no dabs, external links ok, no duplicate links, no citation errors, Earwig tool reports no issues [3]) (no action req'd).
    • The Battle of Milne Bay is specifically mentioned and linked in the lead but not directly in the article (although mentioned in the prelude as an "attack on the Allied forces at Milne Bay"). I wonder if it should be mentioned by name or at least with a link in the body of the article as well? Also the outcome of that action is not mentioned unless I missed it, but it might seem relevant given that its conclusion presumably allowed the release of the 2/12th Bn to move to Goodenough and elements of 2/10th Bn to Normanby Island in the first place (my assumption only I haven't looked for a ref to back that up).
    • "Boarding the destroyers HMAS Stuart and Arunta on 22 October, the Australian troops were transported to Goodenough Island..." From where? I'm assuming they were still deployed around Milne Bay at this time. Is that right?
    • "Drake Force had two AWA 3B Wireless Sets for maintaining communication with Milne Force." Readers might be unaware what "Milne Force" was so I wikilinked it (no action req'd).
    • "the Taleba Bay force on Stuart came ashore in Tieryo, a ship's launch and a ship's whaleboat,[21] and was ashore" - repetitive use of "ashore" twice in one sentence. Perhaps reword one?
    • The use of native police guides by Arnold's force might be mentioned (for ref see McCarthy p. 347 and Powell p. 117).
    • Spot-checks: completed for Collie & Marutani 2009, McCarthy 1959, Gill 1968, Powell 2003, Dexter 1961, Drea 1992, and Odgers 1957 (as I have copies of these in my possession). All seem to support information as presented with no issues of close paraphrase that I could see (no action req'd).
    • Overall this looks in very good shape to me, just a couple of points above to address / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that all your points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day, AC, thanks for taking a look. Hawkeye: sorry, I appear to have edited the article at the same time as yourself. Please feel free to adjust my edits as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review: the article consistently uses {{sfn}} formatting for short citations throughout, and the reference list also uses a consistent format so I couldn't see any issues there. All sources used look to me to pass WP:RS with the majority being dead tree sources published by reputable publishers, and a couple of web resources published by the Australian War Memorial. The books used including the key Australian and US histories of this period, and whilst some are a little dated (1950s and 1960s) they are still the main sources on this topic in my experience. A couple of Japanese sources (i.e. Tanaka and Collie & Marutani) have also been used which help to build on these. Again no issues that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we just need a source review for formatting and reliability, unless I missed one. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done above now, thanks for the prompt. Anotherclown (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2017 (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/Battle_of_Goodenough_Island/archive1&oldid=778075000"