Jump to content

Talk:Huon Peninsula campaign/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 11:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The coverage of the fighting is excellent, and the article is generally very good. However, I think that the focus on the 9th Division is too tight at times. My comments are:

  • "and the destruction of the Japanese Army's ability to seize the initiative in the region" - this might be a bit of an overstatement given the strategic situation at the time
    • I've deleted this. I seem to recall that this is what the source says, but I had to send the book back to the library a couple of days ago, so I can't check it now. I will try to get the library to send the book back as soon as possible. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and early sections of the article should briefly note the Salamaua–Lae campaign's important role in drawing Japanese attention away from Lae prior to the landings there (Philip Bradley's recent book on this topic is fantastic)
  • You might want to note the poor quality of some of the Japanese units (from memory, the 20th division was being used to build roads at the time of the landing at Lae, and was regarded as low-quality outfit; I may be confusing it with another unit though).
  • The description of the capture of Lae in the lead should also note the 7th Division's role
  • "These waterways rise towards " - "These waterways descend from" might work better, though I'd be happy to defer to your judgement on the correct terminology
  • The first para of the 'military situation' section should note the failed Japanese offensive in the Battle of Wau
  • I'm a bit surprised that the 'Prelude' section only briefly mentions the role of the 7th Division, and doesn't note the role of the US parachute regiment at all (or link to the FA Landing at Nadzab). While this does reflect the structure of Coates' excellent book, he uses it as a device to introduce the 9th Division, and I think that the emphasis on this unit here is a bit too strong. I don't believe that the statement that "The only Allied forces available to secure Lae and Finschhafen were Australians from the 9th Division" is correct.
    • added mention of the 503rd's landing. Re the statement, I seem to recall that that is what the source states, but again I don't have the book to hand. I've tweaked the wording to make it a bit less pointed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lae had fallen more quickly than the Allies had anticipated and they exploited the advantage quickly." - slightly repetitive
  • "Japanese marines" - to be really pedantic, the Special Naval Landing Force weren't 'marines', but rather naval infantry.
  • You may wish to note that most of the Japanese forces managed to sidestep the American beachhead at Saidor, leading to problems for the Allies down the track.
  • "The Japanese also had a reputation for not taking prisoners" - so did the Australians, unfortunately.
  • For A class (and beyond, I hope) you might want to dig through the war diaries on the AWM's website to see if you can find some maps of this fighting - Hawkeye might be able to help with this as he found the excellent map of the advance to Fortification Point (the source he used (the 9th Division's report on the campaign) has some not-great quality maps of the region. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Great work Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]