Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Kaiapit/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 SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 [1].

Battle of Kaiapit

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor but important action from the New Guinea campaign of 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. One source.
  2. Template issues. Corrected.
  3. He was there. Kelly was an RAAF Dakota pilot during World War II, and later served in Malaya and Vietnam. His three volume (so far) history compiles documents from the AWM, NAA and NACP. I regard it highly, and find it completely reliable, but if there is a problem, there are only two references, so I can replace them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed Kelly from the sources. I still regard him as highly reliable as a historian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Left Chris' book out. Added a reference to Willoughby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox checks

  • Alt text: Some images have it, some not -- should be consistent
  • External links: The New Guinea Offensives link seems to just go to the main Official Histories page at AWM rather than the book itself -- probably an old URL
  • Citation bot: Not checked -- timed out on me
  • Dab links, redirects, and ref links: No issues reported

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials look good. Minor copyedit but prose generally seems fine. A few suggestions:

  • Situation
    • That subheading doesn't do much for me for some reason. I know "Military situation" might sound a bit obvious but it reads better to me, or perhaps there's something better still -- just a thought...
    • "airborne engineer aviation battalion" -- Seems an awful lot of adjectives, even for the military. Is there really such an animal? Can either "airborne" or "aviation" be dropped without hurting the meaning?
      • Yes, there was. The engineer aviation battalions were specially trained and equipped for building airbases, much like the RAAF's airbase construction squadrons. Of course other engineer units like construction battalions and general service regiments also built airbases, but these guys were the specialists. The airborne engineer aviation battalion was a special variant that was air portable for supporting airborne operations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude -- Not a nitpick this time, just wanted to say that I found the description of the independent company's characteristics succinct and useful -- that sort of context always helps.
  • Battle -- "new 208 radios" doesn't mean a lot, and passers-by might even think you meant 208 new radios, so I think I'd drop "208"; either that or make it clear that's it's a model, and better still briefly mantion what made them different from standard or older radios...
  • Aftermath -- Not trying to downplay the victory it but I wonder whether something like "significant" works better; failing that, perhaps "spectacular" (or the source's equivalent) could be quoted/attributed.

Anyway, well done -- I'd never heard of this action till now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Comments Nice read! Needs some work on fit and finish. Some issues with prose, linking, and MoS are outlined below.[reply]

  • "capture of Lae" in the lead hyperlinks to "Landing and Lae" which makes no mention of any capture. Low-value link. Why hyperlink Lae later in the lead but not Nadzab?
    • The Landing at Lae article is on my work list. It's a stub at the moment, but will be expanded to a featured article. Nadzab was not linked because the article did not exist when this article was written. added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in ... in a special flight" sounds redundant.
  • Unclear language: First para of "Military situation", second and third sentences. Avoid beginning sentences with nebulous "this" and "it". Unclear what these are referring to. This problem occurs in several places throughout the article. Another example in Aftermath: "This was still a difficult approach, as aircraft had to land upwind while avoiding Mission Hill."
  • Linking strategy overall needs revisiting. I see at least three different links to "Ramu", all done in different ways.
  • What is the reason for having the Geography section where it is? It seems to interrupt the narrative you begin in "Military situation". You are reading a story, and then you are reading about geography, and then you are reading a story again.
  • "Prelude": What is a "warning order"? Explain or link jargon.
  • "To make the company self-supporting, it had its own engineer, signals, transport, and quartermaster sections." Needs rewriting.
  • "On 17 September 1943, it finally took off for Leron in a special flight of 13 Dakotas of the US 374th Troop Carrier Group." Clunky. Why not "On 17 September 1943, a special flight of 13 Dakotas from the US 374th Troop Carrier Group finally took off for Leron."
  • MoS work needed: I fixed one instance of a period being outside a complete-sentence quotation—there are others.
--Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Disclaimer) Interesting read, looks good to me. Please see the media review below though, as some things need tweaking. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review A few minor things. First File:Markham Valley.jpg really should have a description of exactly what is going on somewhere, if not in the article, on the file description page. Second, I was going to ask you to put File:Bulldozer arrives on plane at Kaiapit strip 1943.jpg in a Template:Information template, but I decided to do that one myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following what you are asking for. What sort of description is required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red lines are who? Black lines are who? Who won what and when? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have expanded the caption and the alt text to add this. I guess I am too used to military maps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check clear 6/10 sources 20/40 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: (I'm going to have to read Dexter I think before I'll sign off) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mellor (1/40 citations): excellent.
  • Kuzuhara (1/40 citations): has no page 123!!! It is 12 pages long!
  • Horner (1/40 citations) can't review, snippet view not working. Its a general SITREP style sequence of sentences that broadly set the ground, this is unlikely to be a) incorrect, b) poorly cited.
  • Craven & Cate (1/40 citations): First of all, this is miscited. But otherwise it is clear. You actually mean to cite: Richard L. Watson "Huon Gulf and Peninsula" in Craven & Cate
  • Bradley passes 3 randomised snippet searches for no plagiarism and correctly supporting statements
  • Dexter issues (12/40 citations) fn1 clear; fn3 clear; fn12 clear; fn17 clear; fn23 clear; fn25 clear; fn27 clear; fn29 clear; fn35 correct; fn38 correct Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn18c should be at p419;
    • fn22 What bunching? What Owen guns? The source actually says, "With bayonettes and grenades" re a MG post. In fact grenades seem to be the key part of the action after 7am.
  • Please consider the above depth of spot checking and get back to me about if you need to go over the sources I couldn't check Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very, very nice article. I got here very late and it seems that the other editors have already addressed all concerning issues. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Support As a disclaimer, I started this article in 2008 but haven't had all that much to do with it since. I think that this article is now of FA class, though I do have the following comments and suggestions:
    • You are still the second largest contributor though, with a whopping ten edits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying that independent companies were "Somewhat larger than a conventional infantry company" is an understatement - they were about twice the size
    • "As it came in to land, King spotted Papuan patrols in the area" - it's a bit unclear if you're referring to the PIB or local Papuans here. I'd suggest tweaking it to "As it came in to land, King spotted patrols from the Papuan Infantry Battalion in the area" to avoid any confusion.
    • "As the company advanced it came under light-machine-gun fire from foxholes on the edge of the village. A 2-inch mortar knocked out the machine gun." - the first sentence implies that there were more than one machine gun (through use of "foxholes") while the second sentence states that there was only a single machine gun - this should be clarified.
    • The account of the main clash between the Australian and Japanese forces seems a bit brief, though it is a good summary of the action. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (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_Kaiapit/archive1&oldid=1088824233"