Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Sanananda

I'm a bit dissapointed with the way the battle of Sanananda is mentioned.

"The US 163rd Regiment Infantry — from the US 41st Infantry Division — joined the assault on the last Japanese holdout, at Sanananda, which was taken on January 22."

The Australians made the assault because the US regiment refused orders to advance due to low moral after taking serious casualties in an earlier battle. They only "joined the assault" after the fighting was largely over. In fact a bone of contention for Australians is a memorial erected there by the American Legion that not only doesn't mention the Aussies but states that the 128th infantry at Sanananda prevented a new Japanese advance to Kokoda (which was impossible even if the Japanese had won) and was a major part of the "American" victory in New Guinea.

I feel Sanananda should have it's own page. Wayne 04:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to start that page, Wayne. Logically it will be a subsidiary page to this one as it was part of the same campaign and Sanananda, geographically speaking, is between Buna and Gona. Grant | Talk 16:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite the Australian forces doing the bulk of the fighting and taking the majority of casualties, the article focuses almost entirely on the junior partner of the Ally team. Article needs a rewrite for balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.234.56 (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of photo of dead soldiers?

Library of Congress title: "U.S. forces inflict heavy casualties on Jap[ane]s[e soldiers] in capture of Buna, New Guinea. On the beach of Buna Mission, last point of Japanese resistance in the Papuan section of New Guinea, the bodies of slain Japanese soldiers lie a few steps from their shattered landing boat. The Japanese suffered heavy losses in this engagement and eventually were completely routed by American and Australian forces."

I came to this page by chance as I spend time trawling through the Library of Congress photogrpahy archive and uploading public domain images. I came a across a couple relating to the Buna battle, one of which I've already put on the page. However this photo at right, I realise could be contentious and thought I would propose its use on the talk page first and gauge any reactions. --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the Manual of Style but I do not see anything wrong with using such images. Although confronting they could add to the article in a meaningful way, and given the passage of time it is unlikely that they will cause any distress to family etc. You are right to be cautious though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it: Wikipedia is not censored and I've seen much worse photos of this terrible battle. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm against censorship in any form but that picture does not seem to fit well. I would prefer a picture that "talks" to you if you can understand where I'm coming from. An example of what I mean is a photograph (catalogue no. AWM 014037 in the Australian War Memorial) that shows two machinegunners firing at the enemy at Buna late in the afternoon on New Years Day. Next to them is the body of the original gunner shot by a sniper lying so that his face is partially obscured by the gun. To me his anonominity represents all the casualties and the situation embodies the battle. It talks. I hope I'm not being too esoteric. Wayne (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the picture is just fine for adding to the article if you see fit to do so. While the other image proposed by Wayne is also good, the image of the dead Japanese aptly illustrates the absolute brutality of the Buna fight and does fit IMO. Both of these images are certainly more relevant and have greater impact than the picture of the three generals recuperating in the hospital. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As the person who uploaded the picture of the three generals, I demur over the question of relevance. I agree that photograph of the dead soldiers has greater impact and shows the brutality of the fighting. But such a photograph might have been taken after many battles; the fact that three general officers were wounded in the battle is highly unusual and also tells us something of the nature of the fighting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick responses. I'll go ahead and add the photo. Wayne: I understand your view. Personally, I think it is not an either/or issue, both photographs would be good for the page IMO. One aspect of this photo which I believe adds to the article is the fact that at present there are no images of Japanese soldiers in the article. Of course that the only image on display is of dead Japanese soldiers is not ideal. There is another image from the AWM, ID P02443.012 (URLs seem to expire, I found the image Wayne mentioned through the advanced search), which shows: "Major George A. Marks, 32nd Division, US Army, of Boston, Massachusetts, USA, treats a head wound on an emaciated Japanese prisoner of war (POW) taken at Buna Mission." I looked for this at the LoC archive but could not find it. Perhaps adding these two images (ie the one Wayne mentions and this second POW one) to the article would also be useful? I note AWM claims permission must be sought for use of its images, but in the case of photographs, I would have thought this is public domain (and the photo details include a "copyright expired" tag).--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The copyright says: Copyright expired - public domain. Australian copyright law is life of author +50 years or 50 years from the date of first publication if this is after the author's death. Obviously the AWM wouldn't like images of dead soldiers used "innapropriately" so probably want to know where and how it will be used. I'll contact them to find their requirements and how they feel about the use of their more "sensitive" copyright expired pics on WP. If they object I'd prefer not to use it despite it being free of copyright. Wayne (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's for an artwork. A photograph is in the public domain if it was taken prior to 1 January 1955. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

World War II-era photos are explicitly marked as 'public domain' on the AWM's image database for the reason Hawkeye states. As such, the AWM has no say over how it's used (and I don't think they have any problem with the more disturbing images in their collection being used). Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of their photo's are not available elsewhere online and some are disturbing in that they show allied dead so I feel it is courtesy to get their approval. Being a member of the RSL I can vouch for them taking approval or lack of seriously and I know that the Australian media do pay the AWM to use them even if they are public domain. Having said that I have received a reply from the AWM regarding using photographs from their collection. They have no problem with Wikipedia using them and made only one request. That the photo have the link http://cas.awm.gov.au/photograph/###### included. The ###### to be replaced by the pictures catalogue number. Wayne (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions for improvement

I've done a bit of work adding some more citations to the article, however, there are still a few paragraphs without citations (a requirement if the article is to be promoted to B class). If anyone can help with adding these in, that would be great. Some other suggestions that I have for improvement are:

• the addition of a Background section I think would help to improve the article by assisting readers to understand how the fighting around Buna and Gona fitted in with the rest of the New Guinea campaign.
• the addition of an Aftermath section would also help improve as per above. This could include information such as casualties, battle honours awarded, etc. Also some analysis might be included here, for example lack of Allied artillery, ineffectiveness of Allied air support, why the Allies suffered so many non battle casualties, performance of commanders, Japanese failure to reinforce and resupply, etc.
• the position of the images could be tweaked a little as currently there is one section without any and another with four. This makes the page look a little unbalanced.
• Referencing could possibly be improved also, though direct citations to a number of sources that are contained in the External links section. A Japanese perspective might be found in the Rottman source that is listed in the Sources, but not directly quoted (I don't have access to this, but if anyone else does, it would be great to see some citations from that work).

Anyway, these are just a few suggestions if any one is interested in doing some work on this article. If you would like some more detailed feedback, please consider putting the article up for peer review. Good work so far, by the way. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Overview section is too long edging into duplicating content in the body of the article. It could be trimmed with any original content moved into the body of the article, with the remainder becoming the Background section you mention. I also don't think the "First Phase" and "Second Phase" are a very informative way to organize the battle description.

I also think the Footnotes section is mis-labled. I believe the the "Footnotes" should be "Notes," "Citations" should be "References," and "References" and "Additional Reading" should be merged into "Additional Reading." -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Btphelps. I've just had a quick look at the changes you've made and I think that they have improved the article considerably. Good work. I'm not sure I quite agree with the Notes, References etc. labeling, as it is not the style I use, but that is of course by no means what should determine the style for this article and ultimately it is just a matter of personal preference. So long as it is neat and gives the reader what they need to check the information (which this does), I can live with the format you've changed it to. If a couple more citations can be added to the article (where the citation needed tags are and the paragraphs that are missing cites, e.g. the first paragraph of Background, Allies supply lines distant, first paragraph of Attack reinitiated, final paragraph of Aftermath), then I believe it would be a B class article at least. I'd probably suggest reducing (or unforcing) the sizes of some of the images (although probably not the map - you've done some, but I think the one in the infobox could be 250px, and the firing trench could be unforced), as this usually gets brought up at peer review/ACR. Anyway, good work and thanks for your help! — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading this article I decided to reword the text of the Background part of this article. My feeling was that that text available did not give sufficient credit to the 2 preceding battles fought almost exclusively by Australian forces. I also feel that the rest of the article could benefit from better structure and balance between the effort expended (and results achieved) between the 2 main allied partners. 147.29.31.5 (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Now with a name instead of an ip number Ussing (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support by sea is neglected

The article introduced the issue of distant and difficult supply lines without any reference to those by sea in either the initial landings or regular runs begun in December and running through the rest of the campaign into the build up of the area as a base for further operations. I just added some bits and pieces on that difficult operation but a considerable section could be added on the initial operations by vessels of the Small Ships Section. Masterson, available in segments as .pdf files, summarizes this operation on pages 587—588 (Part_4(2) in the link and extracted for convenience):

In October 1942 all craft controlled by the Small Ships Division were ordered to Milne Bay for service in supplying the Buna-Gona region, previously reached only by air. These craft, leased from their Australian owners and numbering not more than 250, consisted of schooners, motorships, motor launches, cabin cruisers, ketches, trawlers, barges, and miscellaneous vessels, most of which were ancient and rusty. Their Australian crews rigged sails when the engines broke down, and made emergency repairs when the hulls were punctured with bullets or jagged coral. A trawler with 6-foot draft could rarely get nearer to shore than 50 yards, and landings were often made with native canoes; or skippers would "load about 200 men on a fishing trawler and make for the beach at the fastest speed we could coax from a stuttering engine.11 The 32d and 41st Divisions were landed in this way. Later the fleet was augmented with new craft constructed for the Army in Australia. Among these were 30-foot surf boats, drawing only 3 or 4 inches light, 35-foot steel ship barges, weighing 5 tons, and 26-foot wood motor dories, draft 4i feet. The dories were used as tugs and the surf boats and ship barges as landing boats. Boats were sometimes palled to shore and back with ropes; later they were powered with outboard motors.

By the middle of 1943 the vessels of 500 tons or less working along this coast numbered about 350. These vessels were hidden in rivers and coves during the day to elude air attack. They moved at night through uncharted waters, marking reefs with empty oil drums and keeping records of observations and soundings, which were later used in charts prepared by the Royal Australian Navy. Some of the vessels were armed with ,50-caliber machine guns and 3-inch guns. On more than one occasion they shot down attacking aircraft. By the middle of February 1943 they had lost 3 trawlers, 1 auxiliary schooner, and 1 auxiliary ketch; but total losses before the summer of 1943 were less than 3 percent of the small-ship fleet. Reefs gave protection from submarines. All unloading was done at night. These vessels originally supplied all the small ports and isolated forces from Cairns to Thursday Island (off the tip of York Peninsula), and from Merauke to Oro Bay and Buna; and later they were used for coastwise service hundreds of miles farther west and north. In the summer of 1943 they were reinforced by the arrival of the first LSTs, LCTs, LCMs, and DDKWs, with military crews; but the earlier fleet continued in service till the vessels broke down or wore out. After the conquest of Hew Guinea most remnants of this small-ship fleet were returned to their Australian owners or sold in Australia, but part of the fleet proceeded to the Philippines.

A search on "Small Ships Section" and "Buna" will give other references, including this news summary and this, U.S. Army Small Ships Association, having a photo section. The naval end is well documented in Gill's history of the RAN. Details on the Small Ships, largely crewed by Australian Civilians, are in Lunny's two books starting with Forgotten Fleet: a history of the part played by Australian men and ships in the U.S. Army Small Ships Section in New Guinea, 1942-1945 and continued in a second volume. Palmeira (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Improving structure and content

Some years ago, I had read "To the bitter End" by Lex McAyley on this subject. Having some concerns about the balance of the Wikipedia article, I looked for other material on the subject available on-line. This included, Volume V – South–West Pacific Area – First Year, Kokoda to Wau (1st edition, 1959). This is digitised and available from the Australian War Memorial (AWM). Chapters 11 – 17 deal with this battle. 2013 James Brien, Bloody_Beachheads_Ver_15 is an article accessed from the AWM. PAPUAN CAMPAIGN, The Buna-Sanananda Operation, 16 November 1942 - 23 January 1943, CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY, UNITED STATES ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C., 1990 was also accessed. I have read these materials. Other material available from the AWM includes: Chapter 8, Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 2 – Navy , Volume II – Royal Australian Navy, 1942–1945 (1st edition, 1968); Chapter 31, Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 3 – Air, Volume I – Royal Australian Air Force, 1939–1942 (1st edition, 1962); A number of short articles or web pages on the AWM site; and, digitized war diaries of participating Australian Units.

I am throwing this talk out for discussion and to help gather some ideas for myself (and others). It is, by its nature a frank critique of the existing article. I acknowledge the contribution and efforts of the principle and subsidiary authors and apologise in advance if my statements lack tact in any degree. After some reading I feel that there is a need for a significant review. I have tried to gather my thoughts on such a project but I am feeling a little overwhelmed by the enormity of the task and my near total inexperience with contributing to Wikipedia.

The article generally reads well and flows but appears to suffer from repetition of some points or details. I believe there was some comment to this effect in the peer review.

I was struck by a strong similarity in structure and content between this wiki article and the American history. I believe that the American history unashamedly concentrates on the American involvement in the battle and does not pretend or purport to give a balanced or holistic account of the battle. I believe that it even acknowledges this partisan approach. This article appears to me to similarly lack balance. It also concentrates disproportionately on operations in the vicinity of Buna, which is consistent with an American perspective of the battle. While I won't pretend that the Australian official history is without bias, it certainly has the appearance of being a much more balanced report.

There are some matters of fact and inconsistencies between sources. The most glaring is the strength of the Japanese garrison. Figures range from about 5,500 to 10,000 from a source quoted by James Brien (Steve Bullard, (trans.), Japanese army operations in the South West Pacific area: New Britain and Papua campaigns, 1942–1943, Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 2006, p. 205). McAuley gives an estimate of 5,500 reinforce by 1,200 on the eve of commencing the battle with further reinforcement being made over the course of the battle. The article states:

"There were about 5,500 Japanese army and navy troops in and around Buna. Opposite the 126th Infantry was the Yokosuka 5th Special Naval Landing Force, composed of about 400 tough naval infantrymen with an additional 600 naval construction troops. As recently as 17 November, Japanese destroyers had delivered 2,300 troops fresh from Rabaul, New Britain."

In context, this states the force at Buna to be 5,500, separate from the force at Gona and Sanananda. The article needs to circumspect by acknowledging the range of Japanese strengths that have been reported. Needing confirmation is the availability of artillery.

Some of the headings are used more like newspaper 'highlights' than identification of a section of material on the subject identified by the heading. See "Limited Artillery" as an example.

It is my understanding that the opening section of the article should be a précis or abstract of the article. I suggest that this section here is too long and too detailed. This is perhaps the one section where repetition is acceptable and even expected. Significant points and references are made here rather than summarising ideas developed elsewhere in the article.

I have come to the conclusion that the most significant deficiency in the article is its structure. While it does tend to read well, notwithstanding repetition, there is a tendency to digress, particularly in that section dealing with the battle. In consequence, the thread of the battle is lost in dealing with topics of importance but which are, nonetheless peripheral. Consequently, this disrupts the continuity of the account of the battle. There is also a need to provide balance in recounting the actions at the various locations, where presently there is more emphasis on the action in the Buna area. The question then, is what might be a more appropriate structure?

I suggest that there are four key headings, much as there is now. Prelude is perhaps incorrect here since it deals not just with those topics which are a prelude to the battle but with topics that are significant that evolve through the course but which are peripheral to the actual battle such as logistics, the political military manoeuvring. I have grouped these ongoing matters at the end of this section and acknowledge that this might delineate two sections (though what to call them?). I suggest that the order of battle give a time line of unit both entering and leaving the battle area, attachment to formations, their initial strengths and subsequent losses. It might also indicate where they were employed. I acknowledge that some issues identified in the prelude (or parts of these issues) might best be dealt with in the aftermath or conclusion section.

Anyhow, these are some initial ideas.

Abstract

Background

Prelude

 2.1 terrain
 Climate
 Japanese Defences
 2.2 Japanese forces
 Deployment of Japanese forces 
 2.4 Allied forces
   Order of Battle
 Disease
 Equipment
 Training
 Intelligence
 Maps
 Deployment of 32 Div and move to position
   Morale
   Criticism
 7 Div move to position
 Logistics
   Limitations
   Airdrops
   2.5.1 Airstrips built
   2.5.2 Sea route opened
   Major events
 Japanese resupy and reinforcement
 Fire Support
   Artilery
     Availability
     Effectiveness
     Limitations
   Armour
   Naval Support
   Air Support
     Area Bombing
     Close Air Support
   Political Military position
     Replacement of Commanders

Battle

 Overview of conduct of battle
 Battle in Buna Area
 Battle in Gona are
 Actions to west of Gona
 Actions at track to front of Sanananda
 Advance on Cape Killerton
 Capture of Sanananda
 Conclusion (of battle section)

Aftermath

 Subsequent action
 Casualties
 Wider impacts
 Lessons Learnt
 Awards
 4.2 Recognition and memorials

Cinderella157 (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Cinderella, thanks for taking the time to review the article and over suggestions. If you would like to see what your changes might look like without editing the article, perhaps you would feel more comfortable writing a draft in your "sandbox", which is an area of Wikipedia that belongs only to yourself. If you did that, once you have produced something you are happy with, you could invite other editors here to review that version, and if there was consensus, it could be moved over the top of this article (potentially with some administrator help). To achieve this, you would have to create your sandbox page first. It can be done by clicking here: User:Cinderella157/sandbox and once that has loaded the new page, then clicking the "save page" button at the bottom of that new page. You could then copy-paste the current version of this article there, and commence your restructure/rework, making sure to hit the "save page" as you go. If you have any questions, please let me know. Equally, if my instructions aren't clear, please let me know and I can try and help you further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I was looking for was some feedback. Is there a consensus on the need to improve the article's balance and coverage of actions other than in the Buna area? What I foreshadow is a major change of structure and probably a significant expansion. Is there some consensus that a change in structure is necessarily the way to significantly improve the article. If this is the case, is there some consensus on what this structure might be to provide a starting point. I don't want to go about reinventing the wheel if everybody is happy with the one they have already. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day, again, yes I think that there is scope for improvement on the article and your suggestions seem quite reasonable to me. I just think that large-scale changes such as that which you are proposing would be best done in a draft first. If possible, though, I would look to reduce the number of headings proposed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference needed

This has come over from the original page an, correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't have a reference there.It is a quote but the reference is at the end of the paragraph and it doesn't give this quote. Can anybody help with the correct citation pls.

was described by Colonel (Col) Wilson, Chief of Transportation, as "the most dangerous coastline in the world." 

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved with help from @user:Palmeira

Reference needed

This is out of of the original page. I have use the sentence with the number of guns but there is no reference for this. Can somebody help pls. Ref 44 does not give this.

The Allies initially lacked armour, artillery, naval support and air support for their attack.[43] The division was normally assigned a complement of thirty-six 105 mm (4.1 in) howitzers and twelve 155 mm (6.1 in) howitzers. But due to a lack of transportation, these had all been left in Australia. General Albert W. Waldron kept asking that the division's artillery be brought forward, but MacArthur's headquarters did not have any way to transport the weapons nor keep them supplied with ammunition, and they responded coolly to Waldron's pleas.[44]

Also could somebody help with a reference for the number of guns to an Australian Brigade/Field Regiment/Infantry Division at the time.

Cinderella157 (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I believe that around this time, Australian field regiments consisted of three batteries, each of two four-gun troops. That would make 24 guns in a field regiment (usually 25-pounders). My reference for this is Les Bishop's Thunder of the Guns: A History of the 2/3 Australian Field Regiment, p. 462. The full details are as follows: Bishop, Les (1998). Thunder of the Guns: A History of the 2/3 Australian Field Regiment. Sydney, New South Wales: 2/3 Australian Field Regiment Association. ISBN 064635163X.. Also, this seems to say something similar: [1]. Unfortunately, these refs aren't specific to Buna-Gona, and I don't have anything that mentions 36 x 105 mm and 12 x 155 mm. @Anotherclown: Do you have anything that can help here? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Howdy. Isn't the passage referring to the US 32nd Division's artillery, not Australian? That's my reading of it anyway. I don't have anything on this I'm afraid. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, yes, I think you are right, now I've re-read it. I don't believe the Australians would have used 105 mm and 155 mm pieces at this time (they were mainly using 25 pounders and 4.5 in howitzers etc, I think). In that regard, maybe the information could be found in 32nd Division's history? Do we know if it had one written about it? The Milner work has some information on artillery in its index, but doesn't seem to provide much that I could see regarding the 32nd Division's allocation: [2] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert Anotherclown thanks so far,

The question is in two parts

First part is about the US scale that has been quoted in the original page and isn't referenced. I carried that across into the draft.

The second is about the Australian scale so I think I now have enough for that.

I am only after a generic scale so I can compare what they could have/should have had with what they got. This is the para in the draft.

In context, a US infantry division would have an establishment of thirty-six 105 mm (4.1 in) howitzers and twelve 155 mm (6.1 in) howitzers. An Australian division would have three Field Regiments (before adopting the jungle division establishment in 1943). Each regiment would have two or three batteries of 12 guns each). It could be expected that the two allied divisions deployed might field between 120 and 150 artillery pieces. As a corps scale engagement, it is reasonable that there would be additional corps assets and army level assets allocated in direct support, increasing the total of guns even further.

Cinderella157 (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday - this is covered in Horner (1995) The Gunners, p. 225. Mentions make up of Aust 6th Div on formation in 1939 as being three field regts each with three batteries of 12 guns (although initially 18 pounders and 4.5 inch howitzers as 25 pounders weren't available). That said it varied through out the war b/n two and three batteries as you rightly say above. Anyway does this help? Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is great for that part of the question thanks. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Solved Cinderella157 (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference needed

Hi, This is note 3 in the original page. I have carried it across into the draft but it needs a reference as it didn't have one or do I just drop it?

The natives provided Division G2 Brig Gen Charles Willoughby with information that led him to believe the Japanese garrison at Buna was about a battalion.

Cinderella157 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit more on this. The ref is the red arrow website (http://www.32nd-division.org/history/ww2/32ww2-2.html) problem is that it didn't show up because it is in a note. How to make it show up? The ref name is 32ndDiv. The problem is how to make it show up? Anyone got a solution please? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day I've done this for you with this edit: [3] Regarsds, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference formatting in notes

Hi,

This is from note 16 in the draft.

Milner (1957 p. 176) reports the gain as, "several hundred yards". A reconnaissance by Major Harcourt, Officer Commanding the 2/6th Ind Coy, found ...

How do I make it look like this? Could anybody make it happen as an example pls. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I'm sorry, can you please re-phrase your question? I'm not sure what you are asking. The note in the article already appears to match what you present above. Are you wanting to change that? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The original was done without reference links. Was able to use the {refn} example you put in. Thanks for that. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Guadalcannal reference

Hi again,

This is a paragraph from the "background" section in the draft. Source material was unsuitable to reference. I am concerned mainly about getting citations for the number in the initial landing force and the last sentence. Alternatively, a suitable replacement para with citation/s to support.

Allied forces identified a Japanese airfield under construction at Guadalcanal. Sixteen thousand Allied infantry, primarily US Marines, made an amphibious landing on the 7 August[21] to capture the airfield. The battle lasted until the 9 February 1943[22] and was strongly contested, on land, at sea and in the air.

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarified Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Solved Cinderella157 (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference queries

G'day, I've found a couple of citations that do not seem to match the details in the References list. In the Citations I can see "Milner 1959" and "Walker 1962", but in the References only "Milner 1957" and "Walker 1957". Are these the same/are 1959 and 1962 just typos? If so, I can fix them quite simply by adjusting the short citations accordingly. If they are different, we will need to hunt down the full bibliographic details, which might be a bit harder. Does anyone know the answer here? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Typos - thanks - fixed.

Re Walker, it is a case of whether he should be cited as 1957 or 1962, given the online source from the AWM. The original bibliography used 1957 and all citations now use 1957 but I suspect it would be more correct to use 1962 and change all to 1962.

Comments ?

Is there an easy way to change all to 1962?

Have fully reference sections except sections Gona to James and the main battle section. There are a couple of queries I have already identified. If anybody sees anything outside of these that need a citation - let me know. Use ?? inside ref marks. have also been chopping up some of my compound sentences as I have been going. Will be taking a break for the week-end at least. Thanks all for the help and support. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, if you want to change them all to 1962, you could probably just use the CTRL+F find function in edit mode and search for "Walker|1957" and replace them with "Walker|1962". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Do yo think it necessary? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Had another look and I think this is correct the way it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo or not this reflects a common problem in some of the official histories. In particular those just using the web version of one of the published books may get a different date than either the original publication or the latest version and those could perhaps differ from the .pdf version on the CMH bookshelves. For those I am now using the LCCN data as the authority and including the LCCN# in the cite (they have no ISBN) so in Milner's case we have an LCCN with 1957. The full book citation does include that field |origyear= that can be used with a later version date. Palmeira (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

2 urls in a reference

see reference Center of Military History (1990). How can I put in 2 urls? one is html and the other is pdf. regards Cinderella157 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The fix achieves the end. Thanks Cinderella157 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle Honours

Proposed alternative note to explain the sixth subsidiary honour listed by the AWM

Would this be considered original research or synthesis?

The AWM refers to a sixth subsidiary honour.{cite} The Battlefields nomenclature Committee{cite} lists six subsidiary battles. The sixth is 'Buna Village'. This committee was responsible for determining the official names of battles and engagements with respect to Britain and the Commonwealth. Battle honours use the tittles as determined by the Committee but these are not, per se, battle honours. While 'Buna Village' is the official name of the engagement, it does not appear to have been actually conferred upon any unit as a subsidiary battle honour. Maitland lists only five subsiduary honours.[643]

Comments please

G'day, I think the proposed wording about would be fine so long as you do not reference personal communications. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js,

Have run this script.

Errors occur where there is n.d. for the date. Is this ok or how to fix?

Also, errors where references in bibliography have not been cited - though some relate to the n.d. issue. How to address? Do they need to be removed/moved. I don't see this as a great issue myself? What to do? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I believe I've fixed the first issue. The second is generally resolved by moving works from the bibliography that aren't being specifically cited to a Further reading section, and then removing the html "ref=harv", but you are right, the second issue is not really a big deal until you try to take the article through higher assessments like WP:MHACR or WP:FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not attached to the unused references either way as they have been inherited. Anybody is welcome to do with them as they think is proper.Cinderella157 (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Advance to Cape Killerton and fall of Sanananda-Giruwa

Do I change the heading to

Cape Killerton, Sanananda and Giruwa or

Cape Killerton, Sanananda and Giruwa fall or

Cape Killerton, Sanananda and Giruwa taken or

Advance on Cape Killerton, Sanananda and Giruwa

on the basis that it will reduce the width of the TOC? Comments? @AustralianRupert just do it if you agree.

I have been pondering the issue of size and how to handle. Does Wiki have the functionality for drop down sections of text like in the TOC. Main headings could retain an introductory paragraph/s which are 'self contained' and the following text could then be expanded or contracted by the reader. This would be much more functional than linked pages where you actually 'leap away' from where you are. As an example, all of the subsections of Battle could be handled this way. Climate and terrain could be handled this way. The first parragraph is sufficient to stand alone and the remainder could 'drop down' and expand the section. This could be done to the others without much effort. Comments. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Added option Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I went with the first option. Regarding collapsing sections, yes this can be done, but I wouldn't advise it. The functionality is mainly used for talk pages, I believe, and I've not seen it done in articles except for long lists within prose. For example, see Royal Australian Regiment. Are there any other opinions? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Supporting roles

With deference to the contribution of btphelps, I think that the lead provided by this section lacks depth (which is not to be confused with size). I don't particularly support the sub-grouping this creates but if it is to remain, I think that there needs to be a stronger lead to support the grouping. See alternative I have proposed User:Cinderella157/edit#Fire support. If supported, it duplicates the first para of the 'Artillery' section and this would need to be deleted from there. I also think that 'Fire support' sits better as a title (and is more understandable than 'Supporting fires'). @AustralianRupert just do it if you agree, unless you think it needs further discussion. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"Fire support" works for me. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"Fire support" or "supporting fires" --> I'm comfortable with either, but we should probably pick whatever will be more easily understood by our readers. If you guys think fire support is best, go with that. Regarding the lead for the section, I actually think you could probably get away without a lead for the section, and let each subsection introduce themselves, but equally it could be expanded slightly if you think necessary. I wouldn't see the need for more than three or four sentences though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note 33

Eichelberger quoted in Advance to Buna – Part 2 of The 32nd 'Red Arrow' Infantry Division in World War II.[69]

Made this a note as I couldn't get it to be a citation. Not the same as other problems we have had. Any ideas? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I think that it can be done by using the following html code: <ref>Eichelberger quoted in {{cite web|url=http://www.32nd-division.org/history/ww2/32ww2-2.html|title=Advance to Buna – Part 2 of The 32nd 'Red Arrow' Infantry Division in World War II|publisher=32nd 'Red Arrow' Veteran Association |accessdate=6 January 2010}}.</ref> (not using the "nowiki" tags as I've used them here so that the ref doesn't actually display here). What you have currently though is probably sufficient already, so it may not be necessary to change it, though. Another option is to convert your web citations to sfn citations also. There is an example on this page here: Australian Flying Corps. But please note, these are just style variations that are optional and you don't have to change if you don't want to. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert Will go with the line of least resistance and leave it since you think this is an acceptable solution. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Readability

@Cinderella157, I sincerely appreciate the vast amount of effort you've put into improving this article. I know how much time this takes. However, the revision has upped the ante in language density and complexity, when -- given U.S. society in general and Wikipedia's audience -- we ought to be moving in the other direction. We need to make complex, arcane articles like this more accessible to a lay audience, not less so. I'm having the same challenge with Battle of Remagen.

For example, I tested the second and third paragraphs of the revised lead in a commonly used readability tool.

Revised version ( 2nd and 3rd paragraphs)

Flesch Reading Ease score: 22.2 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: very difficult to read.

Gunning Fog: 17.5 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: difficult to read.

Current version (2, 3, and 4th paragraphs)

Flesch Reading Ease score: 33.5 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read

Gunning Fog: 16.7 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: difficult to read.

With the Flesch Reading Ease score, a lower score is not an improvement. There are other scores provided from this test and others like it that tell a writer how to reduce college level writing to a more accessible grade level. Shorter sentences and simpler word choices will help a lot. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 09:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I took my own advice and edited the first four paragraphs of the Battle of Remagen. I was able to reduce the grade level from 15.5 to 8-9. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 09:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@btphelps Sorry but you comparison is not clear. By revised version, are you meaning the draft and by current, are you meaning Battle of Buna-Gona? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear. Revision = Draft; Current = Battle of Buna-Gona. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@btphelps The full text of the lead in the current version has 645 words. As the readability link only uses 600 words, you get slightly different scores depending on whether you use the first or the last 600 words. The scores were:

Forward

Flesch Reading Ease score: 41.1 (text scale)

Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read.

Gunning Fog: 13.1 (text scale)

Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.

Backward

Flesch Reading Ease score: 40.8 (text scale)

Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read.

Gunning Fog: 13.5 (text scale)

Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.

I have already reviewed the text of the draft to the scores below. These are certainly not significantly different from the original article.

Flesch Reading Ease score: 39.1 (text scale)

Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read.

Gunning Fog: 13.2 (text scale)

Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.

Your rewrite scores the following:

Flesch Reading Ease score: 36.6 (text scale)

Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read.

Gunning Fog: 12.5 (text scale)

Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read.

On the basis of the two scores that you have chosen to quote, your rewrite does not demonstrate an improvement in readability. Your rewrite has increased the number of paragraphs to in excess of four. Your rewrite has introduced a number of inaccuracies, matters which are subject to misinterpretation, are unclear or are ambiguous. The 32 Div was criticised both during and afterwards. It had received very little training in anything and what training it had received in Australia was for fighting in Australia. To say, "The Japanese commanded virtually all of the dry, high ground." Gives the impression that there was ground that was high, such as a hill. "Australian and United States troops were forced to attack through swamp with extremely limited visibility." This is a generalisation and then only if a flanking manoeuvre was desired. It does not describe the fighting at Warren Front. "Basic physical facilities" is unclear. I had to read this a couple of times to work out that you probably meant. "The Allies initially resorted to porters to manhandle supplies forward." Forward from where? Port Moresby? I think you will find that they were utilised initially and all the way through. "They gradually built airstrips". The first airstrips popped up almost overnight. "He was competing with Admiral Chester Nimitz for priority assignment of forces." Given the point in time, it is probably a bit early in events to make this claim but there was political friction but at this time, it was probably just as much about prominence. "Allied air-power gradually interrupted". It interfered almost immediately (after about 22 November) and caused proposed landings to be turned back or divert to the west. Apart from the withdrawal of the sick and injured which began from 13 January, the evacuation was ordered on 20 January and most withdrew on the night of 21 January. The battle ended the following day. "Despite a lack of provisions and reinforcements, the remaining Japanese defenders staunchly defended their positions to the last man." Lack of provisions and reinforcement is hardly relevant for holding out for half a day after the evacuation. In any case, they were so starved by that time, there was relatively little resistance. "Staunchly" implies that they were able to put up a much stronger fight. I appreciate your intentions and will give consideration to incorporating some of your ideas into the lead. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Allied forces section

Have a proposed edit for the 'Allied forces' section. Can be found at User:Cinderella157/edit#Allied forces.

@AustralianRupert If you consider this an improvement and there are no questions or a need for further citations, you might move this across please. Of course, this does not include the 'Order of battle' material. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying operation names

Italics for the operation names as in Operation Karsik and Operation Tramisk could lead one unfamiliar with the subject and military usage to believe these are ship names. In fact, that is to be expected since the first is a ship name that in very poor "cover" and "security" used the actual ship name. (Not a good idea! Any "spies" hearing that and knowing of the ship Karsik would have paid special attention to the ship! Bad thing unless the whole thing is a diversion or decoy.) In this particular context it is quite misleading to follow that particular format since it does involve ships and in the first instance the ship involved and mentioned in the paragraph. Wikipedia does not have a standard format, neither do military writers, but here I think the format used in Operation Crossroads or other alternative would be better than that used in Operation Varsity. It makes a clear distinction in this particular context between ship and operation names. I made the entire operation Italic in the edit to get attention drawn to this issue. I will happily agree to any format you choose that does not confuse operation "name" with ship "name", i.e., Operation Karsik and Operation Tramisk (Wiki Overlord article), "Operation Karsik" and "Operation Tramisk" (Gill: "Karsik's first trip with tanks to Oro Bay was designated "Operation Karsik"; the second was "Operation Tramsik".) or, as some official military writers do, use all caps as Operation KARSIK and Operation TRAMISK ("Green Books" as in "The PROVIDENCE operation had . . .")—then make the choice standard throughout. Palmeira (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

An operational codename is a title (name) and the usual convention is that names (just like ship names) are italicised. The question is whether or not the word 'operation' is an intrinsic part of an operation's name. In the absence of any apparent guidance on the matter, I have run with the position that it is not an intrinsic part of the name. Personally (and respectfully), I think you are over-thinking the potential problem. Reference to 'Operation Karsik' is always preceded with the word 'Operation'. I am not stuck on either style but I have a recollection there was an issue with Operation Mo. The issue I do have is that by making the edit, inconsistencies in style have now been introduced into the page. The easiest way to address this is to undo the edit that created the inconsistency. Having said that, I am happy to seek and obtain a consensus on how to proceed. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So, why not follow Gill? That Australian naval history most certainly used the Italic ship name and the non Italic operation name in the same sentence. I quoted it above. You are flat wrong on "the usual convention is that names (just like ship names) are italicised" for operation names. Gill (AWM) and the U.S. Government Printing Office have Italic capability but do not Italicize Operation Name as you suggest. Follow the experts and keep it simple. Yes, what you have used is one of several styles you may see, but in this case it is a poor choice for due to not particularly "over thought" objection. Avoid confusing your readers. By the way, do you have the idea that "consensus" from a few of us on this draft will prevent future edits, even stylistic ones? Even if those of us involved now all agree and never edit again that does not apply to anyone in the future. That does not seem to be the way this place works. You may be putting far too much effort into something that by its very nature is not a stable work. Palmeira (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the change. My "not particularly 'over thought' objection" is that this creates inconstant styles within the page. The easiest way for me to fix this is to undo the edit. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Change the style throughout. It is a blasted codeword—not a "title" and not a "ship". Military authors, including nations, handle codeword styles differently. In most modern cases they are obscure, as "meaningless" as possible and generated in lists assigned to operations and projects in order to help prevent exactly the idiocy of assigning the word "Karsik" to an operation in which a ship of that name was involved. Sometimes, once politicians get their amateur, PR happy hands on them they get tweaked for some hot sounding thing, but they are supposed to be codeword shorthand and nothing more. I think you will be closer to the main stream of general military usage and authors, including the AWM, by using Operation X in just that form. Palmeira (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've popped over at Cinderella's behest to give an opinion without prejudice here. The best way to look at this IMO, is firstly to refer to MOS:ITALICS (which I think gives enough guidance about what to italicise and what not to) and then look at some Milhist FAs that have operation names in them. 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy and British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War, are all substantially written by different editors (not me), and all use plain text for operation names/codenames. I suggest the MOS, while it isn't super clear on this specific issue, effectively excludes operation names by not specifying italics for them. In practice, FAs don't use italics for codenames, and they are our best work. Hope that helps. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point. The use of the form Operation Codeword is somewhat unusual and precisely what I object to in this draft for the particular reason that Karsik the ship was foolishly chosen as a code name for the operation resulting in Cinderella using Operation Karsik and Operation Tramsik in the draft's text and thus creating potential confusion of a codeword with ship names. Australian sources tend to use Operation Karsik and Operation Tramsik so I suggest Cinderella do that and, in the interest of uniformity and conformance with most references, do the same with every codename in the article. If you mistakenly thought I proposed italics for the full name as my revision made them you should read the top paragraph: "I made the entire operation Italic in the edit to get attention drawn to this issue." Palmeira (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

@User:Anotherclown, I am curious as to the rationale for deletions listed below? Cinderella157 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

deletion 1

Leading into the battle, Allied intelligence was severely deficient in respect to the disposition of Japanese forces at the beachheads and knowledge of the battlefield. Both the strength and the overall combat effectiveness of the Japanese defenders was severely underestimated.[149] "In a major intelligence blunder, Allied staffs told frontline commanders that they faced no more than 1,500 to 2,000 enemy and could expect the Japanese to surrender by about 1 December."[149] Other intelligence described the Japanese defenders as "sick and malnourished" when in fact, at least 6,500 from the Imperial Japanese Army and marines from the Special Naval Landing Forces held the beachhead.[149][57][notes 22] They were largely experienced troops, in good spirit, well prepared and well provisioned. What had filtered down to the GIs making the attack on 19 November, was that there were only two squads of Japanese at Buna.[150]

deletion 2

Australian, American and Japanese forces had entered one of the most malarial regions in the world.[56] While malaria was the greatest disease threat, other tropical diseases such as dengue fever, scrub typhus, tropical ulcers, dysentery from a range of causes and fungal infections were also common.[57][58] The impact and susceptibility to disease was exacerbated by poor and insufficient diet.[59]

No idea what you are talking about - I didn't delete any of that and all of that still appears in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, rendering of the differences made it appear that there had been a deletion. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

G'day, good effort so far. I have the following suggestions for improvement to this draft:

• The lead is currently too long. Per WP:LEAD it should be no more than four paragraphs;
• the capitalisation used for many of the section headings is incorrect. Per WP:Section caps, headings like “Climate and Terrain” etc should be presented as “Climate and terrain”;
• many paragraphs or sentences appear to be unreferenced. Please ensure that each paragraph at least ends with a citation;
• I suggest using the {{sfn}} citation system, as that is more compatible with the style currently being used in the article that is in article space;
• the harvnb script identifies a number of referencing issues that should be fixed. If you install the script you will see red warning text in the article. The script can be found here: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js
• File:Action at Buna really should not be used in this article. It is a copyrighted file and I do not believe you have provided a strong enough rationale for its use;
• I wouldn’t use “TOC left”, I’d suggest just using “TOC”;
• watch your date format. As per the guidance at WP:DATESNO we do not use ordinal suffixes, e.g. “22nd January, 1943” should be presented as “22 January 1943”. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday - good to see someone working on an important article like this. Looks like you have made quite an effort so far! I have a few observations for possible improvements to the draft:

1. The structure of the draft could probably be improved using the standard structure for battle articles (background, prelude, battle, aftermath as 2nd level headings per WP:MILMOS/C) - whilst you have a background, battle and aftermath sections, you have a large number of thematic sections as 2nd level headings which are probably more appropriate as 3rd level headings in a prelude section);
2. The draft is very detailed, perhaps almost to the point of being a little too long in places (pls see WP:ARTICLESIZE) - for instance some sections could probably be reduced to more of a summary and separate articles created (for instance a separate ORBAT article is very often used - some examples include: Battle of Milne Bay order of battle, Order of battle for the Gallipoli Campaign and Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan);
3. The date format is a bit off in places (for instance you often use ordinals when they shouldn't be used) - pls see MOS:DATEFORMAT);
4. TOC left is not commonly used, and at any rate the TOC is intimidatingly long (I'd suggest limiting to only 2nd level headings using {{TOC limit|2}} - this is my opinion only and others may well disagree);
5. The current article consistently uses the same reference format throughout (the SFN format) so I think any replacement should use this format for consistency (it also allows information to be moved / copy pasted through out an article without causing errors);
6. We generally don't use abbreviations for rank, probably best to write them in full.
7. Your lead is 6 paragraphs; however, by policy it should be no more than four per WP:LEAD (the current article is admittedly also 6 so is also incorrect);
8. There is quite a bit of information in your draft which is currently unreferenced, whereas all paragraphs in the current version have citations. I think you will probably need to ensure your draft is fully referenced before we consider moving it across.

Anyway hopefully these suggestions help. Happy to discuss anything of course. Once these points have been addressed I'll read through the draft in full and let you know what I think. Anotherclown (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rupert's suggestions. Use the standard structure for a battle article and any revisions should not reduce the number and quality of the citations. Instead of tackling the entire article, you may want to consider revising in parts by first tackling the background, then the battle itself, etc. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Added responses from {{Editing Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona (section)#New Draft Revision]] Cinderella157 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A few specific comments

I took an hour to look at the article and have a few comments. I only have time for a few examples but the issues cited are present throughout. While you've added new content and new sources, the new article needs work on the language and more subheads to add organization to it. With the issues remaining, this draft is still quite a ways from being a genuine improvement over the current article.

• Some of your rewrite is unnecessarily wordy and awkward.

"The first temporay strip at Dobodura was cleared by a company of the 114th Engineer Battalion (Bn) on the November, after a day of work."

Try instead:

"The first temporary strip at Dobodura was cleared and built in a single day by a company of the 114th Engineer Battalion (Bn) on November NN."

• Some of the content is too dense and complex. For example, this sentence has six clauses and a dependent idea at the end:

"When Port Moresby was threatened, he persuaded the Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin, to send the Australian General, Sir Thomas Blamey, commander of Allied Land Forces, to New Guinea – where Blamey would be the scapegoat."

The last clause about Blamey is confusing. Was MacArthur intending to make Blamey a scapegoat? If so, this is an important idea and deserves to be well explained. It's just inexplicably tacked on here.

• You use passive voice a lot. The article switches back and forth between describing actions carried out by the U.S., Australians and Japanese. Passive voice makes it hard for the reader to follow the complex series of actions and track who is doing what to whom. For example:

"The strip at Popondetta was commenced...", "Jeeps were landed...", and "At the start of the battle, attempts were made..."

Try instead:

"The <unit name> started building the strip at Popondetta ... ", The Allies landed Jeeps...", and "At the start of the battle, the Japanese attempted ..."

• Run on, awkward sentences. In my experience as a professional writer, I have learned that sentences with greater than about 27 words are growing too long to allow the reader to readily understand the content. For example:

"For the Kokoda campaign, there were three alternatives available to the Australians for resupply: supplies and equipment could either be portered forward overland from Port Moresby, they could be air dropped or they could be landed at a forward air strip and then man-packed from there."

Try instead:

"During the Kokoda campaign, the Australians had three alternatives to resupply the front lines. They could use porters to carry the equipment overland from Port Moresby, a long and difficult trek. The Allies could air drop the supplies, but mis-drops were common. They could also send the supplies in by aircraft, after which they would be carried forward by hand."

• Poor word choice. For example, "porter" is a noun, not a verb. "Portered" is not a word.
• Non-standard abbreviations, for example, "2/6th Ind Coy" and "US 32nd Div and Aust 7th Div". Use standard abbreviations. The Manual of Style suggests avoiding technical jargon that can confuse readers. Avoid the temptation to use military shorthand like "Div". Remember that not all readers of this article are familiar with military jargon. While common within the military, even "US 32nd Inf. Div. and Aust 7th Div.", is not standard usage. Nothing much is gained by eliminating a few letters to create new abbreviations when the phrase could be easily spelled out. By way of example, see Guadalcanal Campaign.
• Section length. The entire article needs additional subheads to make the text more accessible to the reader. See section length.
• It's acceptable to forgo citations in introductory and summary content. For info, see citation usage. But the article contains this unreferenced content in the middle of a section:

"As a corps scale engagement, it is reasonable that there would be additional corps assets and army level assets allocated in direct support, increasing the total of guns even further."

In this instance, the content may be seen as original research because it offers conclusions in the middle of a section without offering a citation. You might be able to move this content to the beginning to form an introduction, although I think the "reasonable" conclusion merits a citation. Another good reason to do this would be to put the use of available artillery in context by first introducing the usual levels of artillery accompanying the forces, and then the actual number in use. This will help the reader better understand the challenges of the battle.

That's all I have time for right now, but there are a number of other issues remaining. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)