Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Milne Bay/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: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate you taking this one on. Just so that it is nice and official, I am co-noming this with Hawkeye7. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll be taking this in small bits because of its size. These comments cover everything up to the Battle section.

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) (As an apologia for weaseling out on my offer of a free book.)[reply]

More later, once my eyes uncross.

The more later—covering Allies subsection of Prelude section:

  • Pontoon needs disambiguation.
  • "Companies" is a duplicated linkage.
  • American engineer units are listed as regiments rather than battalions, thus misstating their size and organization. Additionally, using format of XXth Engineer Battalion (United States) would link directly instead of using a redirect.
    • No, that would be wrong. The American engineer units were regiments, with two numbered battalions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Linked articles state that 43rd did not become a regiment until 16 March 1943, the 46th two days later. During Battle of Milne Bay, they seemed to be battalions.
        • No, they weren't. By "43rd Engineers" and "46th Engineers" is meant a regiment. The term regiment is normally dropped. Moreover, I checked the primary sources and they were referred to as "Engineer General Service Regiment" at the time, even though officially they were 43rd Engineers (General Service).
          • Then how about fudging this admittedly muddled situation (featuring one branch of U. S. government saying one thing, another saying something else) by changing on-screen names to "43rd Engineers" and "46th Engineers"? You may want to change to "96th Engineers" also for consistency's sake.
  • Similar situation exists for PSP. Using Marsden Matting would link directly and skip redirect.
  • Kittyhawk can be any one of fourteen items, as can be seen by its disambiguation page. Using Curtiss P-40 Warhawk for linkage is clearer and skips redirect.
    • It is correctly linked to "P-40 Warhawk". The Warhawk was never used in SWPA, only the Kittyhawk. Using Warhawk would be wrong. Doesn't the Warhawk article make the distinction between the two clear? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have always thought of a P-40 as a P-40, never mind the model name, but concede the point.
  • If Kittyhawk usage is changed, so should Zero to Mitsubishi A6M Zero, for consistency's sake.
  • Paragraph about malaria (6th para in subsection) is unclear. Result(s) of haphazard precautions need to be clear. Also, just what is so important about Fairley's action(s)? After reading about him, I still don't know why his part in this is germane.
    • That is what the paragraph is all about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what this para is unclear about to this reader. Questions abound. Did a lot of men come down with malaria, or only a few? Was any unit incapacitated by malaria? Did a malaria epidemic slow construction? Prevent defense? Also, did Fairley's aid effort arrive ahead of serious malaria problems? Or during? Or too late? Did it prevent spread of the disease? Cure it? Or was it ineffectual? Point being, it must have had some effect, or it wouldn't have been mentioned. However, the effects are not given.
        • It should all be explained in the Results section below. Added a few more words about Neil's role. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "few more words" amount to an excellent rewrite adding much-needed clarity.

Now, I've gone bug-eyed. Need another break. To quote someone referred to in this article, "I shall return".

And back over to me in Denver.

"I have returned." Prelude section, Japanese sub-section:

  • Not really incorrect...however, it could be useful to know how close Samarai was/is to Milne Bay. It could illustrate the interference that Milne Bay's installations would present to Japanese plans.
    • Not sure. Samarai Island is in the China Strait, south east of Milne Bay. It isn't very far at all. 5 or 6 miles maybe? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding a phrase such as "within a few miles of Milne Bay" could help illustrate the problems the Milne Bay installations would present to the Japanese. It would also give reason for the necessity for their attack on Milne Bay.
  • The rank "Major General" is linked for Kenney, just as it was for Clowes in the subsection above it.

On to the Battle section:

  • Initial landing subsection: Did the botched Japanese landing put them closer to the Australian/U.S. forces, or further away? How did being in the wrong place affect the Japanese plann of attack?
  • Japanese advance inland subsection: Is the identity of the Japanese ships shelling the Australians known? I also would suggest the following re-punctuation/slight rewrite for clarity's sake: "...sticky bombs, but due to the humid conditions the bombs failed to adhere to the Japanese armour." Further down, I would suggest clarification of just whom was being illuminated by flares—the Aussies themselves? the attacking Japanese? both sides? With these exceptions, this is an excellently written subsection.
  • This may be overkill on the clarity issue, but I suggest that the comma after the phrase "four frontal attacks" become either a semi-colon or a period. In the latter case, capitalize "however" to make the trailing clause into its own sentence. Either way, a run-on sentence is cured. Also, as part of the illumination tweak, "...the first Japanese attack was repelled by heavy machine-gun fire fire..." would be the tiniest bit clearer. Finally—is it "machine-gun" or "machine gun" in Australian usage?

Next subsection: Australian counterattack

More later. It's almost 2 AM here.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it for me. Lemme know whenever you're done, George. I'd suggest an ACR after we finish going over this with a fine-tooth comb.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On to the "Japanese withdrawal":

  • And it looks just fine to me.

Next, "Base development" subsection of "Aftermath" section.

  • Link to coastal guns (155 millimetre) connects to article on French artillery. Is this truly what you meant? If so, your sentence probably should mention their Gallic provenance.
  • I would suggest "A weather record...." or "A meterological record...." to clarify the extraordinary rainfall.
  • In American usage, the term for a staging area for an airplane is "hardstand"—one word, no hyphen. Is that also true for Australian usage?

"War crimes" subsection:

  • Link to "Moscow Declaration" leaves me baffled. The Moscow Declaration seems to pertain to Nazi German war crimes. How then did its scope get extended to the Japanese? Wouldn't an explanation be helpful (that is, if the reason is known to the authors)?
  • Curiosity question: Were the war crimes investigated at Milne Bay the first known instance of Japanese war crimes during WWII? Why were they such a shock–if indeed they were. It might be useful to know this, as it may have had a bearing on ongoing Aussie attitudes toward Japanese soldiers and sailors.
    • They were not the first. Perhaps the best known was the Bataan Death March, but it wasn't the first either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is not one of which atrocities were committed first, but when knowledge of Japanese atrocities spread and affected Aussie soldiers' attitudes. Why were the Milne Bay war crimes so influential?

I just realized my coverage of the Results section got blown into cyberspace by an edit war. So, once more:

  • I believe the para on the effects of malaria on the campaign are outstanding. Military history usually glosses over the effects of disease to a military force, and skips right to the blood and gore of dead and wounded.
  • I do believe that the para on battle honours should be moved to the end because it is chronologically last of the paras. One more section dubbed Legacy might be added, including this para and a bit about the importance of French's VC, which was one of the first won in WWII.
    • I have moved the paragraph so that it follows chronologically. I haven't, at this stage, split it out into another subsection. I'm mindfull of writing too much about French's VC as I'm concerned that to do so might be undue focus. As an aside, French's VC wasn't the first in WWII for the Australians: there were a number in 1941 and early 1942. Along with Bruce Kingsbury's award, French's VC was one of the first two to be awarded for actions on Australian territory. French's was gazetted first, but Kingsbury's actions were performed before French's. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to end by thanking the editors for an informative article about a battle that was basically unknown to me. We Americans tend to focus on Guadalcanal, and don't notice Milne Bay.

I may have picked some mighty fine nits in my above commentary, but I was not quibbling. I had the aim of seeing an already excellent article improved.

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you taking the time to review, George, and your comments. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm passing this now; y'all did an excellent job.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Milne_Bay/GA1&oldid=466109052"