Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landing at Nadzab

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.

Landing at Nadzab

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Featured article candidates/Landing at Nadzab/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... It is a large and important article about one of the lesser-known but more spectacular battles of World World II. And I think it's pretty interesting. Click on the external link at the bottom to watch a video on YouTube. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative, but still requires a close copyedit. It would also be good to spell out which units were American vs. Australian for readers unfamiliar with the campaign. I expect that it might be a little awkward to phrase gracefully, but it's still necessary. A blanket statement would probably do since the bulk, if not all, of the air units involved were American. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than by clicking on the links? Sorry, bad taste - of course they aren't going to click on the links. As it happens, the air forces involved did include many RAAF units, although most air units were American. I am puzzled as to why a casual foreign reader would care much. When reading French sources for the Great war, I discovered Australian, American, British and Canadian armies were all lumped together as les soldats anglais without much thought for the tribal differences. I guess I could compile an Order of Battle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'll get to more later, but as a preliminary thing, the bullet-points of the C-47 paratrooper loads rather stick out, and would look better integrated into the text, I think; they aren't well-received at FAC, either.
- Folded into the text. Hawkeye7 (talk)
I'd also suggest checking prose, as this also appears to be something that will increasingly come up in FAC reviews as well. Skinny87 (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have a go at a later date. The automated tools don't pick up anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harclerode mentions that a series of diversionary operations were conducted to draw Japanese troops away from Lae, and these don't seem to be mentioned in the article.
- Added a paragraph. Didn't want to get drawn into this, as it was actually larger and longer than the battle covered by the article. It has its own article, although it is still a stub. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's all, really; not much for me to get my teeth into with this article, the 503rd didn't do much more than land and set up some roadblocks.
- Vasey wasn't allowed to use the 503rd as infantry. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, good job so far. Skinny87 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - (this version)
- ~~One external link appears to be dead.~~
  - It's a link at Maxwell AFB. Other pages there still link to it, so I'm hoping that they'll just fix the problem. I sent them an email. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: Got a reply. The base IT personnel are working to correct the problem. May take a few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Any source for the opening image?~~
  - Several. But this copy came from the AWM. Updated image info. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~File:Short 25pdr.jpg: PD or non-commercial use only?~~
  - It's in the public domain, the copyright having expired. The AWM has since conceded this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~File:C-47 transport planes loaded for Nadzab .jpg: created by the U.S. Army? That's the only tag you need. :)~~
  - Yes. Updated the info. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bradley (2003) appears in your references section but does not seem to be an in-line citation...
  - I originally used it but then switched to his book during the edit process... Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should it be removed then...? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~OCLC's for the books would be nice so a reader can find the books in a library near them easily; just type worldcat.org/isbn/########## into your browesr, replacing the #'s with the ISBN.~~ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Has a look.) Needs work. Took me a couple of goes to figure out that you have to key in your four-digit post code. They believe the Fryer Library at UQ is in Canberra when it's actually at St Lucia, QLD — 1200 km away. (Sent them an email.) It doesn't know about local libraries, just passes you on to the ACT Library service... Keyed in a more difficult book and it told me that the nearest copy is 14,000 km away.
  - Somebody put OCLCs in one of the biographical articles but I can't remember which one. Sounds like an obvious job for a bot. (Looks at API doco.) RSS. Should be simple enough. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh...never mind, how about. ;) Good luck on the bot; I don't know anything about programming, so I can't help. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is another excellent and highly detailed article which meets the A-class criteria. I have a few comments for the article's development which you might want to consider:
- I think that the introduction is a bit too long
  - I don't know if it is really that long; I think that it is many short paragraphs. Maybe some could be combined? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Trimmed it a little, and combined two paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence"This meant that, in the initial stages of the operation at least, the 7th Division would have to be maintained by air" is a bit unclear - this could be changed to something like 'the lack of an overland supply route meant that the 7th Division would have to be initially maintained by air"
  - Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the article would benefit from a comprehensive copyedit before a FAC - I spotted a few typos and missing words, and I suspect that there are more Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's always more... Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, I just added a photo to the article, which isn't as famous or clear as AWM 030141/24 but I think that it's more dramatic (oddly, the AWM record says that the gunners are 'relaxing', when at least two of them look terrified!) Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

"The 25th Infantry Brigade reaching the town shortly before the 9th Division, advancing on Lae from the opposite direction." That's not a sentence.
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please move some images left for balance.
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Transport aircraft controlled by the 54th Troop Carrier Wing, commanded by Colonel Paul H. Prentiss, with his headquarters at Port Moresby." Fragment.
- Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All minor issues that should be easily fixable. – Joe N 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.