Talk:Landing at Lae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

It's good to see a detailed and high-quality article on this significant operation. I have the following comments

• The lead is a bit on the short side
  • expanded a little AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• "which took place between 4 and 6 September 1943" (and the infobox) - the article covers the operations from 4 to 16 September, and I'd suggest using this date range as historians tend to treat the landing and advance to Lae as being a single operation/battle
  • adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• "The second part was assigned to General Sir Thomas Blamey's New Guinea Force" - perhaps note that this was an (exclusively/mainly?) Australian force
  • Added a clarifying clause. @Hawkeye7: can you please check you are happy with my change, and adjust as necessary? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    I have changed it to "a predominately Australian formation". Although mostly Australian, it did contain many American units. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    • Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can the strategy section discuss the Japanese occupation of Lae, and its status at the time? (eg, was this a significant base, and did the Japanese consider it defensible?)
  • I've added a short bit to the start of the Strategy section. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Can the Planning section discuss the Japanese plans?
  • As noted in the strategy section, these were about capturing Bena Bena and Mount Hagen. To support Lae, a lot of work was done on the Bogadjim Road. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• What's a "passage of lines"?
  • basically moving through another unit (either towards the enemy or away, hence "forward passage of lines" or "rearward passage of lines"). I tried to clarify this a little. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• "formed a harbour" - this term will be understandable to people familiar with jungle warfare, but probably will confuse others
  • reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

    This is the sort of thing I'd never botice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• "with the 26th hand railing the Burep for several miles " - what's meant by "hand railing"?
  • reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• "with service politics complicating the matter" - can more be said on this? Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, Nick, thanks for these comments. I've made a start on a few, but I might need to defer to Hawkeye for a few of them. @Hawkeye7: are you able to take a look at a couple of these? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
    • G'day, I've added a bit more. Not sure if its sufficient, or not, though. This is a summary of the recent edits: [1] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Those edits look great, and I'm very pleased to pass the article. I'm looking forward to seeing it at ACR and FAC. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting to see that this appears directly after Landing at Anzac Cove at Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare! Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Nick. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all - I really enjoyed reading and reviewing this one. It's such an interesting battle. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

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 if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: