Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Arawe/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 13:15, 3 March 2012 [1].

Battle of Arawe

[edit]

Battle of Arawe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Arawe was a small-scale campaign fought between Allied (mainly United States) and Japanese forces on the island of New Britain between late 1943 and early 1944. The operation served as a diversion from a larger American landing on the island, and both sides regarded it as something of a sideshow to this. Nevertheless, the battle involved large scale Japanese air attacks as well as a series of raids made by the American and Japanese forces. As such, it's an interesting microcosm of the way in which much of the Pacific War was fought during this period.

I've been working on this article on and off for several years now. It was assessed as a GA last December and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review several weeks ago. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg: source site credits "F. Temple" for this image. Same with File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg. File:Japanese_Withdrawal_Routes_in_West_New_Britain.jpg and File:Arawe_Landings.png are credited to R.F. Stibil
    • I've added full details added for all images (and uploaded File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg to Commons under a much clearer name).
  • be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
    • Only one is left now.
  • Be consistent in how reprinted works and new editions are notated
    • Fixed
  • "General Headquarters, Army Forces Pacific" or "General Headquarters Army Forces, Pacific"?
    • Oops: it's actually neither of the two versions I used, but actually 'General Headquarters, Army Forces, Pacific'. Well spotted and fixed.
  • No citations to Hough and Crown 1952, Krueger 1979
    • Both removed
  • Check formatting on Morison bibliography entry
    • Fixed
  • Osprey or Ospery Publishing? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comments by Gnangarra
  • My initial read of this article is thats its comprehensive, and clear no obvious issue stand out its not over loaded with jargon. I did stumble on the Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the Joint.... <emphasis added> as British felt out of place but the link to Combined Chiefs of Staff clarified that, but I consider more during a second reading. Is the abbreviation necessary for Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) as its not used anywhere in the article. Gnangarra 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the IJA. I agree that it's complex to explain what the Combined Chiefs of Staff where in half a sentence when they didn't play much of a role here, but as they were the decision makers it needs to be said who approved what and this was the best I could come up with (after trying quite a few different options!). Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a thought can Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the Joint Chiefs of Staff's proposal that Rabaul be isolated rather than captured.[5] become Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the proposal that Rabaul be isolated rather than captured.[5] remove British and US stops the double take I had, and as the section starts with In July 1942, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff directed that the main objective of the Allied forces in the South Pacific and South West Pacific area commands was to neutralize the major Japanese base at Rabaul on the eastern tip of New Britain makes the use of Joint Cheifs of Staff's redundant and by removing it as well eliminates any confusion between the command level structure that your trying to avoid by using British and US in that sentence. Gnangarra 14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • I like the wording of the bit about the JCS and the CCS. The fact is that far from directing operations, CCS 301 endorsed operations that were already under way.
    • "advanced along the north coast of eastern New Guinea, capturing the town of Lae and the Huon Peninsula in September" The Huon Peninsula was not cleared until December.
      • Good point; I've removed 'September' here as it wasn't really necessary
    • "in favor of capturing Cape Gloucester to in order secure" Word order a little off here.
      • Tweaked
    • You describe Chips as commander of the 7th Fleet, which is true, but he was also in charge of the Allied Naval Forces, and therefore equal to Kenney, whereas the article might be interpreted otherwise due to the wording
      • Tweaked
    • Could the article consistently use "South West Pacific" without the hyphen, as this is the modern Australian form?
    • Could you link "landing ship infantry" and "landing ship dock', as many readers will not be familiar with these ship types?
      • Good point; done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks:
  • fn 3: The JCS directive said: "Seize and occupy Rabaul". The source says: "the ultimate reduction of the Japanese stronghold at Rabaul". The article says: "neutralize", which is unsupported and incorrect. It was right at the A-class review this edit messed it up.
    • I've changed this to 'capture', which appears to be in line with both the source and the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm trying to avoid using 'reduce' as I suspect that people who are unfamiliar with military terminology won't understand what it means, though it is the best term for those who are familiar with this use of the word. I hope that this is OK, but would appreciate alternative suggestions for wording this. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the problem, which I have experienced myself in several other articles. I went through all the primary documents once attempting to discover when the decision was taken to neutralise rather than capture Rabaul. As it turned out, this decision was not taken at once by the JCS, and was opposed by MacArthur, so it took some time. The other point that this drove home is that while many accounts of battles in the Pacific start by talking about a JCS decision, in reality most of the planning was bottom up, with planning being done in the theatres and sent to the JCS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 4, 11, 31, 54, 56, 73, 83, 85, 87, 96, 98 - all okay. No sign of close paraphrase.
  • Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for these spot checks.

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:MHU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "expanded to 60 days of general supplies and six days worth of all categories of ammunition": I don't believe we implement WP:ORDINAL consistently, I'm just pointing out that some will object to "60 ... six". Also, Garner's prefers "days' worth". Also, why "days" in the first part and "days' worth" in the second? - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to '60 days worth'. I've used digits for numbers higher than 12 and words for numbers lower than this in the same sentence in previous FA-level articles without complaints, and I think that it works best. I'm not wedded to this though if anyone thinks that it really sucks though! Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Opposing forces. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. Continuing: "The Allies possessed little intelligence on western New Britain's terrain and the exact location of Japanese forces. To rectify this, Allied aircraft many extensive air photography sorties over the region and small ground patrols were landed from PT boats.": I changed it to "The Allies possessed little intelligence on western New Britain's terrain and the exact location of Japanese forces, so they flew extensive air photography sorties over the region, and small ground patrols were landed from PT boats." - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This party was detected near the village of Umtingalu, leading the Japanese to strengthen their defenses there.": voice, since. Changed to: "The Japanese detected this party near the village of Umtingalu and strengthened their defenses there." - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few attacks were made on the Arawe area, however, in an attempt to achieve tactical surprise for the landing.": "Attempt" is the wrong word to describe not doing something.
    • Tweaked (it's more wordy, but also - I think - much clearer)
  • "In addition to these air raids, a force comprising two Australian and two American (designated Task Force 74.2) bombarded the Gasmata area during the night of 29/30 November.": missing word(s)
    • Fixed
  • "lacked confidence in conducting amphibious operations.": in their abilities, their men's abilities, the wisdom of the operations, the specific plans, or something else?
    • The officers didn't really know what they were doing - I've tweaked this to 'trained'
  • "they had not been previously equipped": Garner's prefers "they had not previously been equipped". - Dank (push to talk) 05:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5 in (130 mm) guns", "5 in ammunition": Garner's generally recommends avoiding abbreviations in running text that are common English words, and I guess that would include "in". (FWIW, they don't like "am" instead of "a.m." for the same reason, but MOSNUM says it's okay.)
    • Fixed
  • "It was originally intended that the troop would land close to Paligmete, but it switched to the island's west coast ...": "it" dangles.
    • Fixed
  • "Once ashore, the cavalrymen advanced east but came under fire from a small Japanese force stationed in two caves near the village of Winguru on the island's north coast.": If "until they" can be substituted for "but" here, do it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This was just promoted; I'm almost done and can do the rest in the article itself. Supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

Military situation
  • "... it was decided to land a small force in the Arawe area to establish a PT boat base and create a diversion prior to the main landing at Cape Gloucester.[10] The landing at Arawe had three goals: to divert Japanese attention from Cape Gloucester, to establish a base for PT boats, and to establish a defensive perimeter and make contact with the Marines once they landed". Why do we need to be told twice that two of the goals were to establish a base for PT boats and to create a diversion?
  • Good point: we don't, and I've trimmed the first sentence in the para
Planning
  • "... asked for only emergency refuelling facilities to be constructed at Arawe". I can't quite get that. Should it be "asked only for", or "emergency refuelling facilities only"?
  • "Under these plans, the Task Force was to initially capture the Arawe Peninsula". What plans? The preceding sentence talks about orders, not plans.
Landings
  • "More than 20 Japanese were located in a cave on the east side of the peninsula, and these were killed by members of "E" Troop and personnel from the squadron headquarters." I'm not fond of referring to the Japanese soldiers as "these", seems disrespectful.
Japanese response
  • "The American force defeated several Japanese attempts to move around the Umtingalu during the day ...". Why the Umtingalu?
  • "... the Japanese were repulsed by fire from the 112th Cavalry's 60 millimetres (2.4 in) mortars". Should that be "60-millimetre (2.4 in) mortars"?
  • "... elements of the Komori Force ambushed two platoon-sized American patrols traveling in trucks north-east of Umtingalu". We have "northeast" and "southwest" elsewhere.

Support. All my comments have been more than adequately addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 2 March 2012 (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_Arawe/archive1&oldid=479974906"