Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Milne Bay/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 GrahamColm 12:16, 24 June 2012 [1].

Battle of Milne Bay

[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert and I collaborated on improving this article, which has passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. The World War II Battle of Milne Bay has a special significance in Australia, as it was the first time that a Japanese land offensive was halted and thrown back. This victory was especially memorable came at a time when the news from all the theatres was equally bad. The base at Mile Bay became an important naval base and staging area, and it remained in use until September 1945. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of Australian and American troops passed through. The article incorporates and great deal of scholarship to provide the reader with an account of how and why the battle was fought, and how and why it ultimately was won and lost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Ling
    • Just kinda skimming at the moment; will try to cover carefully later. but have already seen two or three sentences that were "snakelike" (Tony1's term) or were otherwise awkward.
      • "In response to this sighting, after the initially poor weather had cleared, 12 RAAF Kittyhawks were scrambled at midday and, after finding the barges beached near Goodenough Island where the 350 troops of the 5th Sasebo SNLF, led by Commander Tsukioka, had gone ashore to rest, they proceeded to strafe the barges and, over the course of two hours, destroyed them all and stranded their former occupants" run-on
      • "As the Australians attempted to break contact, the Japanese stayed in close contact with them, harassing their rear as they withdrew towards a creek line where they hoped to establish a defensive line as darkness came" Ambiguous: too many they's etc.
      • "Approximately 600 naval troops were drawn from the 5th Kure Special Naval Landing Force (SNLF), led by Commander Masajiro Hayashi, who were scheduled to land on the east coast near a point identified by the Japanese as "Rabi", along with a 200-man company from the 5th Sasebo SNLF, led by Lieutenant Fujikawa." Who was scheduled... the 5th Kure, or the subset of troops drawn from the 5th Kure? Why didn't you put "led by" after "troops"? Etc.
        • Because, when Rupert did that, it then became ambiguous as to whether it was the Hayashi or the troops who were from the 5th Kure. You're confusing the 5th Kure with the 6th Sasebo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Nevertheless, the major advantage that the Allies possessed was intelligence." OK, this is paragraph-initial, which means that "nevertheless" has scope over the entire preceding paragraph, which it obviously doesn't. Reorganize sentences/paragraphs, or change "nevertheless" to some other rhetorical device.– Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Nevertheless, the Japanese were still pressing..." OK, this one is kinda almost acceptable. You see, if you put NTL in paragraph-initial position at that point in the text, it signals that the entire preceding paragraph describes reasons why we wouldn't expect the Japanese to be advancing at all. That is almost.. nearly.. mostly an accurate summary of the preceding paragraph. It might need tweaking, but... almost OK.
      • "Making slow going amidst considerable resistance, the Australians nevertheless reached KB Mission late in the day and after carrying out a bayonet assault in which 60 Japanese were killed or wounded, they were able to firmly establish themselves there" NTL seems kinda OK-ish there (although "slow progress" anticipates the proposition preceded by NTL, making it... somewhat less than impeccably correct), but the sentence still seems kinda run-on-ish. It might be tolerable to have one or two arguably run-on-ish sentences in an article of this length, but I think I see more than one or two. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "eventuate " low-freq word + not really correct here anyhow. Doesn't mean "occur"; means "occur as a result"). – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "However, in the wake of the battle, Milne Bay suffered an epidemic of malaria that resulted in two deaths, that posed a threat to the base as great as that from the Japanese attack." ambiguous. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "with 'D' Company in the van" I don't know what his means. vanguard? Rear position? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "and by March 1943 the crisis had passed and it was similar" ambiguous – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • G'day, thanks for the review. I appreciate you taking the time to look over it. I think I've rectified those points you raise above. How does it look now? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the moment when I should apologize for not having chunks of time. I pop in and out for a few minutes; sometimes several times per day but sometimes only once or twice. I do appreciate your swift response to my comments. I hope to look more deeply soon. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The arrival of quantities of the new drug atebrin" Could you put a date (even a general one, which in fact might flow more smoothly) and change it to active tense? "In late December quantities of the new and more effective drug..." or something like that. – Ling.Nut (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Atebrin was phased in. It had even been used in the Middle East; but in SWPA the Army was forced to rely on it because of the loss of the sources of quinine. In became the official suppressive drug in December, so I have inserted this fact. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Japanese operations within the region were constrained... The effect that the victory had on the morale..." Can we put these things in perspective... provide a sense of perspective for both of them? How severely hindered were the Japanese by their defeat? Was the effect short- or long-term? How large and lasting was the boost on morale? If the boost was "profound" (your words) then to my mind you haven't quite hit this point with a big enough hammer yet. Was it on war posters at the time, in speeches, etc etc etc? Is there an additional high-quality quote that says it helped the fighting spirit of the Australian forces..? – Ling.Nut (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It has a high quality quote from Field Marshal Slim that talks about its impact world wide. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but that quote is framed more as an admonition to "remebr Milne bay!" rather than an objective, nuts 'n bolts assessment of the impact that the morale boost had on later combat. Perhaps more importantly, the lack of an objective explication of the battle's relative strtegic importance is puzzling in a MILHIST article. In my opinion, at least this section of the article does a better job of lionizing the Australian combatants than of seems to gloss over the two most important points of the article rather than providing an analysis of cold, hard facts. I could be persuaded to change my mind, since I am often wrong about things (especially since I often have only time for a quick skim/scan), but as I am typing this now I feel strongly enough on the issue that I might decide to Oppose per (1b). – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • G'day, I had a go at reinforcing the battle's significance. Would you mind taking a look at my changes and letting me know what you think? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What beer is popular in Australia? You deserve one. That is exactly what I was kinda hoping for. Now about that morale thing... Looking at it again, that section says more than I thought it did. I expressed myself a bit too strongly. But... well, any posters or stamps or anything celebrating it? Buy Australian war bonds, remember Milne bay, etc., that kind of thing? If there wasn't, then of course it's OK, but I would've guessed that there was...?– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Cheers. Regarding beer, it depends where one lives in Australia. I currently live in Adelaide where the local brew is West End or Coopers. IMO, West End is awful, but Coopers is okay. Before I was posted, I lived in Brisbane, where the local brew was mainly XXXX, which I believe gives West End a run for its money in terms of its awfulness. But anyway, to your question of posters, I haven't found anything yet. In regards to stamps, there is this from 1992: [2], this [3] and this from 1967 [4]. William Dargie also painted this: [5] I'm not sure if they are significant enough to warrant mention in the article though, particularly as I don't have any reliable sources that mention them in detail (none of the sources I used mentioned them) and the images themselves probably couldn't be uploaded due to copyright. I'd like to get Hawkeye's opinion on this, though, as he may have different ideas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being from Victoria, the beer was Foster's Lager. Coopers was what was consumed when there was a strike at Carlton & United Breweries. I've added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • As for stamps and all... It's your call as to whether you want to add post-war stuff. That would expand the scope of this article, and doing so is a judgment call. I as thinking of things that may have happened during the war (or shortly thereafter, perhaps, if it is very directly relevant). I guess stamps wouldn't have been reasonable until considerably after the war. But... during the war... was the battle used in any recruitment efforts, bond drives, etc.? This bears directly on the whole issue of morale, both among the soldiers and at home. I'm just guessing at possibilities... fishing for "tangible effects of morale boost" – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of recruitment efforts/posters etc all I've found is this: [6]. Again, I'm not really sure it's significant enough to warrant inclusion as it is not an iconic poster. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My patch of free time is about used up. I think the key point of milne bay was that it stood *in contrast* to the "morale-shattering" crushing defeats (esp. arakan) in jungle warfare before it.
      • Fighting the Enemy: Australian Soldiers and their Adversaries in World War II Mark Johnston cambridge university press "defeat of the japanese at milne bay and kokoda track damaged the image of a japanese 'super soldier' p. 106
      • War in Pacific Skies Charlie Cooper , Ann Cooper zenith press p. 44 morale throughout the pacific climbed several notches
      • British Infantryman in the Far East 1941-45 (Warrior) by Alan Jeffreys and Kevin Lyles (Apr 20, 2003) Osprey Publishing p. 21, 13: the intellectual foundation for the increase in morale included the belief that they were capable of defeating the Japanese. This could be shown by example, with the defeat of the Japanese by Australians at Milne Bay in New Guinea in September 1942.
      • I like this quote as it seems to show the victory actually being explicitly used as a morale booster, but it's snippet view so I can't extract it: The Second 28th: the story of a famous battalion of the Ninth Philip Masel, 1961 - 196 pages - Defeat Into Victory, these words: "We were helped, too, by a very cheering piece of news that now reached us, and of which, as a morale raiser, I made great use. In August and September 1942 Australian troops had, at Milne Bay in New Anyhow, cheers. – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to Support I added that shtuff above, then looked at the article and much the meaning behind the quotes I found was already added recently. I am happy to +Support. As a small personal favor, would you please actually look at all the crap I posted above, and see if anything at all is useful. If it isn't that's OK of course (esp. since the bit about "turning point" and "psyche" in the article is exactly what I was trying to say). Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your time. I will look into all of those. I was planning to write an article on the 2/28th Battalion to accompanying my current work on the Battle of Wareo, so the book by Philip Masel will come up eventually (plus I can get it through the Defence library at work). I imagine I can access the others from the same source, so I will request them on Monday. I will be heading away on a bush exercise on Monday for a week, though, so probably won't be able to add anything to the article until Tuesday evening (12 June). I appreciate the effort you've put into this review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've got the Masel book out of the library now. I couldn't actually find the quote mentioned above in that book (I might have missed it, though). My understanding is that it is actually the start of Slim's quote, which is in the quote box in the article already. I've expanded it now, using p. 187 of McCarthy as a ref. I trust that this is okay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent work, Ling. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check: Geography section.

  • Trivial, but needs fixing: the main and converted units seem to alternate. And could "a 4–12-metre (13–39 ft) wide track" be "a track 4–12 metres (13–39 ft) wide"?
  • This is not a good sentence: "The main area of firm ground suitable for construction and development is found directly at the head of the bay and in 1942 this area was occupied by plantations of palm oil, coconuts and cocoa,[8] as well as a number of jetties and villages, that were connected by a "modest 'road' system"[5] which was, in actuality, a 4–12-metre (13–39 ft) wide track.[9]" Not sure what "directly" adds. Perhaps a comma after "bay", and no comma after "villages"? Can this snake (he-he) be split?
  • How can an area intercut by many tributaries of rivers and mangrove swamps be suitable for airstrips?
  • Optional comma after "(9.9 mi)", since there are two ands; but maybe you might judge this on-the-fence one.
  • Fuzzy back-reference: "Due to the high rainfall (about 200 inches (5,100 mm) per year)[5] and swampy lands, the area is prone to malaria and flooding;[6] during these periods" ... the last three words don't refer to "malaria"; they might refer to "flooding", and there's "high rainfall" hanging around too. Is it that the ground is unsuited for development just during flooding? I'd ditch the semicolon and clarify (", during which ...").
  • "The villages along this track were (from east to west): Ahioma, Lilihoa, Waga Waga, Goroni, KB Mission, Rabi, Kilarbo and Gili Gili." So these villages are no longer there, I presume. Can the colon be removed for greater smoothness?

I haven't looked at the rest. Since I'm being critical, I don't need to declare CoI in that I met Hawkeye7 at a wiki meetup last weekend! It's fascinating talking with him about MilHist. Tony (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*comments by Gnangarra Very good read, i made one minor adjustment to the text outside of that its looks fine to me. The only issue I came across is with File:Japanese type 95 tank at Milne Bay.jpg the description in the article says Type 95 Ha-Go light tank near Rabi, bogged in the mud and abandoned. yet the image description says This picture shows a Japanese type 95 Ha-go light tank knocked out during the Japanese attack two very different events. The to descriptions should be telling the same or similar stories. Evne allowing for that which I presume will get fixed you have my support in it being promoted. Gnangarra 12:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • G'day, thanks for the review. I've tweaked the caption, but I wasn't sure about using the AWM's terminology of "knocked out". I'm not seeing any battle damage on that tank, so I'm not sure if it would be accurate to use that term. It really just looks bogged. Anyway, I went with something generic. Does that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've updated the photograph on Commons. The article is correct. The AWM's picture captions are sometimes inaccurate, being what was reported at the time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted to the original text as I agree with Hawkeye's assessment, since both the image text and image decription now the similar no issues there either. IMHO all set to request a TFA for its 70th aniversary in a couple of months. Gnangarra 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: citations
I have never done an FAC before so I'm not sure if this is the correct format but I've spotchecked the fol refs (as I had the books in my library). Overall they look fine but I found a few issues which I have highlighted below:

  • 1. Coulthard-Clark 1998, p. 227 - 8,824 pers checks out.
  • 3. Coulthard-Clark 1998, p. 229 - figures for Australian and US pers killed and wounded checks out.
  • 5. Brune 2004, p. 266 - 200 inches of rainfall checks out.
  • 7. Keogh 1965, p. 185 - Stirling ranges, kunai and scrub land broadly checks out with out paraphrase:
    • Issue #1: Keogh says the arms of the ranges are 3,000 to 4,000 feet high, the article says at points it rises to 4,000 to 5,000 feet (action required)
    • Issue #2: Incidently the wikilink here is incorrect - it points to the ranges in Western Australia - not PNG (action required)
  • 9. McCarthy 1959, p. 155 - citation doesn't support the information in the article:
  • 10. Thompson 2008, p. 338 - Japanese attack airfields and engineers checks out
  • 15. McCarthy 1959, p. 112 - garrison for Boston, mission and unfavourable reconnaissance checks out without close paraphrase:
    • Issue: McCarthy says Elliott-Smith was then serving with the Papuan Infantry Battalion, the articles says ANGAU (action required).
  • 18. Gill 1968, pp. 115–116 - Karsik, Bontekoe and Warrego and ANGAU labour checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 23. McCarthy 1959, p. 157 - augmentation of engineers by infantry and papuan labour checks out.
  • 37. Walker 1957, p. 53 - 600 RAAF personnel at Milne Bay checks out.
  • 47. Brune 2004, p. 287 - strength and identification of Japanese 10th Naval Landing Force and 2nd Air Advance Party checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 67. McCarthy 1959, p. 164 - Australian withdrawal to creekline checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 81. Bune 2004, p. 341 - withdrawal of 2/10th, relief of 61st by 25th, dispositions of 25th around airstrip and mining all check out without close paraphrase.
  • 96. Gillison 1962, p. 613 - return of the Kityhawks on 29 August checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 113. Gillison 1962, p. 615 - source broadly supports text but seems to have been misinterpreted:
    • Issue: Gillson wrote: "Six Beauforts from No. 100 Squadron... arriving on 5th September these aircraft were joined the next day by three Beaufighters from No. 30 Squadron..." As such it was the 6 Beauforts that arrived on 5 Sep and the 3 Beaufighters on 6 Sep. The article has this the other way around currently, with the 3 Beaufighters arriving on 5 Sep and the 6 Beauforts arriving on 6 Sep (action required).
  • 120. McCarthy 1959, p. 180 - 2/9th Battalion action Elevada Creek on 3rd Sep and loss of 34 men checks out with out close paraphrase.
  • 132. McCarthy 1959, p. 183 - isolated skirmishes in the main Japanese base area on 6 September checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 149. Brune 2004, p. 297 - Japanese sexual assault of Papuan of a number of Papuan women checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 154. McCarthy 1959, p. 187 - effect of Milne Bay dispelling notions of Japanese invincibility check out without close paraphrase.
  • 155. Keogh 1965, p. 230 - Japanese plans at Guadalcanal and in Papua check out without close paraphrase.
  • 165. Maitland 1999, p. 142 - battle honour "Milne Bay" awarded to 9th, 25th, 61st, 2/9th, 2/10th and 2/12th Infantry Battalions checks out. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • FN165: location shouldn't be italicized
  • Use consistent wikilinking, and be consistent in when you provide states (compare for example Bleakley and Bullard)
  • Bullard: what was the date of the original being translated?
    • Steve translated extracts of:
      • Bôeichô Bôei Kenshûjo Senshishitsu (ed.), Senshi sôsho: Minami Taiheiyô Rikugun sakusen <1> Pôto Moresubi – Gashima shoko sakusen [War history series: South Pacific Area army operations (volume 1), Port Moresby – Guadalcanal first campaigns] (Tokyo: Asagumo Shinbunsha, 1968): pp. 1–230, 335–384, 514–532.
      • Bôeichô Bôei Kenshûjo Senshishitsu (ed.), Senshi sôsho: Minami Taiheiyô Rikugun sakusen <2> Gadarukanaru – Buna sakusen [War history series: South Pacific Area army operations (volume 2), Guadalcanal – Buna campaigns] (Tokyo: Asagumo Shinbunsha, 1969): pp. 196–218, 324–362, 577–601.
    • Do you want them added to the Further reading? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're not going to include country for London, I wouldn't do so for Tokyo either
  • Webb: what is NAA ACT? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • NAA = National Archives of Australia, ACT = Australian Capital Territory. I've expanded these out. The ID number will allow you to access the report when you get to Canberra. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments. - Dank (push to talk)

Delegate note -- Image licensing been checked out? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: All the B&W photos are from the War Memorial and correctly tagged as such. Map at the top is CC 3.0, and the lower one is from the Reports of General MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • PD-Australia template asks that you indicate when/where the associated image was first published. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not have that information. It is not necessary for establishing copyright expiration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, as per Hawkeye's post, I also haven't been able to locate this information for the AWM images. They don't seem to articulate this on their image pages. The images all appear to me to be pre-1946, so my understanding is that they are fine under both Australian law (as per the sources' "copyright expired - public domain" description), and the US URAA issue/ruling. Apologies, other than that, I'm not sure how to approach this issue. Does anyone know what has been done in the past in this situation or have any suggestions about how to overcome it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I'm reading the template history correctly, that request for publishing info has been there for some time and has never been an issue; it isn't phrased as a requirement, after all, and in any case the operative point re. the pre-1955 rule is when a photo was taken, regardless of when it was published. For that reason, I'd be ready to promote the article at this point, given it's had its requisite checks and more than enough support. As an Australian MilHist editor with a vested interest in such images, however, I'm going to defer to my fellow delegates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noleander - A few minor thoughts:

  • Hyphen? - "A bitumen surfaced second runway was built at No. .." - Should it be bitumen-surfaced second .."?
  • When? - "Some time after this, two of the small water craft .." - Within minutes? hours? days?
    • G'day, it was later in the evening of 25/26 August, but unfortunately neither Thompson, Keogh nor Dexter seem to say exactly when, as far as I can see. I have clarified the sentence to try to make it clearer and will keep looking to see if any times are mentioned. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any trials? - " In 1944 this was submitted to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, which .." - Did this result in any war crime trials after the war?
    • Good point. I've added what little I've been able to find so far, but none of the sources I've seen so far seem to articulate the results. It may be that this was one of the incidents that didn't get specifically tried (although as I have now added, the incident appears to have been raised in relation to painting a general picture of war crimes during the Tokyo Tribunal. I will keep looking. I have a feeling that it will be in the AWM or NLA some where, but may be it requires a trip to Canberra to view the primary sources, which is unfortunately not something I'm in a position to do at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese viewpoint? - Regarding the war crimes: do any of the Japanese sources comment on this in any way? If so, it should be included..
  • Clarify: "Unfortunately, some equipment was lost or ruined in transit, and the danger from malaria was not yet appreciated." - The "not yet appreciated" is a bit confusing: the prior sentences imply that there was a great deal of concern.
  • In the References: author McNichol, Ronald is red-linked. I presume he is a notable author that may have a WP article some day? No big deal, it just stands out a little.
    • Thanks for pointing this out as it highlighted that the name was spelt wrong. I've fixed that, although it is still a red link. We currently have an article on Ronald McNicoll's father (Walter McNicoll), and I think the presumption is that Ronald himself is notable given his role in the Australian military (a major general) and as an author of a number of works. Happy to remove if you think necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Results section: any insights into Japanese reaction? Either by the Japanese leaders or public?
    • I haven't found anything on the Japanese public's reaction. My belief is that they probably weren't told a whole lot about it, but that is just my opinion so I can't really say it. I will keep searching, but at this stage nothing I've read articulates this perspective. My understanding is that broadly the official reaction was to change their tactics and shift their focus to Guadalcanal in the hope of rectifying the situation there before turning back to New Guinea. I have tried to articulate this in the article, but maybe it needs to be clearer. I will see what I can do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why quote? - "... connected by a "modest 'road' system" that was, in actuality, only a dirt track 10–12 metres (33–39 ft) wide." - Not clear what the source or purpose of the quote is. Perhaps there was an overly-optimistic military report which turned out to be incorrect? If so, clarify that so the reader can appreciate the irony/humor.
  • Outstanding article, with superlative prose. Good job.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk)


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_Milne_Bay/archive1&oldid=1138455624"