Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Sio
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promoted by EyeSerenetalk 14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it is ready. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment No problems reported with dab or external links. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support No complaints from this end, everything appears to be in order. Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- References comments - (this version)
Lead looks a little short; you may want to expand that to two paras if possible to avoid comments on that at FAC, but it's not enough to hold this A-class nom up.
Done expanded it a little bit.
- Looks like enough to me. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Are the cites for "Strength" in the infobox spaced out form the numbers for a specific reason?
- Done Something to do with the "ref" button. Removed space.
Ref 3 - add to "References"? A page number? (is one even needed?)
- Normally, you should not. In the days before photocopiers, reports were often copied by retyping. Files often contain multiple copies of the same report. However, in this case, the document is large, and the two copies that have been scanned by the Australian War Memorial could be considered to be quasi-authoritative. I don't want to give the false impression that I am relying on the web rather than the actual documents.
- That's fine then. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Normally, you should not. In the days before photocopiers, reports were often copied by retyping. Files often contain multiple copies of the same report. However, in this case, the document is large, and the two copies that have been scanned by the Australian War Memorial could be considered to be quasi-authoritative. I don't want to give the false impression that I am relying on the web rather than the actual documents.
As with your other A-class nom, can we have online links to those orders?- These, I think: #1, 3, 10, 11, 13, 17, 32, 33, 38.
- Done You can have links to AWM52. But AWM54 has not been scanned. But you can view it and the Berryman Diary from AWM93 in the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra. You can find 13 at USACE ie the US Army Corps of Engineers in Alexandria, Virginia.
- Thanks for checking and adding the ones you could :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suppport - all comments have been addressed. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking and adding the ones you could :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sources look good, Tom got to the link checker.
Random: the [edit] buttons to edit the "Background" and "Tactics" section are bunched together in the "Tactics" section. Is this just me?
- No, it's me too. Someone should tweak the code that places them. Personally, I think they should be invisible to anyone not logged on as an editor. But that's just me.
- Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support This article meets the A-class criteria. My suggestions for further development are:
- Should the Huon Peninsula campaign be attributed to MacArthur? I know that you've got a better knowledge of this topic than I do, but I thought that Australian officers planned and led this operation
- Yes, they certainly did. But naval and air resources were coordinated at MacArthur's level. I feel comfortable with the attribution.
- You could expand upon what the Battle of Wareo involved
- I could. My intention was to write it up as a separate article. But I can expand what is there.
- The 'Tactics' section could be moved into the 'Operations' section given that it mainly covers how the Australian Army conducted this operation
- Why was the US 532nd Engineer Boat and Shore Regiment wearing Australian uniforms?
- My understanding is that it was to avoid a friendly fire incident. But none of my sources explicitly say so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Was the 4th Bde selected for the initial phase of the pursuit because little organised resistance was expected? - this is implied, but it's not clear.
- Also so that the 24th and 26th Infantry Brigades could be used at Wareo. And because it was expected that the militia would relieve the AIF in New Guinea, so they wanted to give it some experience. It gave the Japanese a bit of a break, as the Australian advance was more hesitant than it might have been. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is it worth mentioning that the code breaking breakthrough after Sio led to MacArthur leap-frogging the Japanese by landing at Hollandia, or is this beyond the article's scope?
- Probably. I'll add an extra bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know that it can be hard to find good-quality images on the AWM's database, but the border around the lead photo is a bit distracting (though it is an excellent choice otherwise). It may be worth cropping the photo to remove this, though it's hardly a big deal. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've cropped the photo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.