Talk:Huon Peninsula campaign/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 11:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

The coverage of the fighting is excellent, and the article is generally very good. However, I think that the focus on the 9th Division is too tight at times. My comments are:

• "and the destruction of the Japanese Army's ability to seize the initiative in the region" - this might be a bit of an overstatement given the strategic situation at the time
  • I've deleted this. I seem to recall that this is what the source says, but I had to send the book back to the library a couple of days ago, so I can't check it now. I will try to get the library to send the book back as soon as possible. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• The lead and early sections of the article should briefly note the Salamaua–Lae campaign's important role in drawing Japanese attention away from Lae prior to the landings there (Philip Bradley's recent book on this topic is fantastic)
  • I've added a little bit on this now. I've haven't read Bradley's book yet, although I might be able to get it through the work library. I will see if I can put in a request tomorrow. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• You might want to note the poor quality of some of the Japanese units (from memory, the 20th division was being used to build roads at the time of the landing at Lae, and was regarded as low-quality outfit; I may be confusing it with another unit though).
  • Yes, that is correct, I believe. I've added mention of this using Miller as the reference. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• The description of the capture of Lae in the lead should also note the 7th Division's role
  • I've added a bit on this. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• "These waterways rise towards " - "These waterways descend from" might work better, though I'd be happy to defer to your judgement on the correct terminology
  • That's a fair call. I went with "flow from". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• The first para of the 'military situation' section should note the failed Japanese offensive in the Battle of Wau
  • Added mention, but I didn't go into much detail. Do you think more is required? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that's all I was thinking of. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a bit surprised that the 'Prelude' section only briefly mentions the role of the 7th Division, and doesn't note the role of the US parachute regiment at all (or link to the FA Landing at Nadzab). While this does reflect the structure of Coates' excellent book, he uses it as a device to introduce the 9th Division, and I think that the emphasis on this unit here is a bit too strong. I don't believe that the statement that "The only Allied forces available to secure Lae and Finschhafen were Australians from the 9th Division" is correct.
  • added mention of the 503rd's landing. Re the statement, I seem to recall that that is what the source states, but again I don't have the book to hand. I've tweaked the wording to make it a bit less pointed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Lae had fallen more quickly than the Allies had anticipated and they exploited the advantage quickly." - slightly repetitive
  • Tweaked. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Japanese marines" - to be really pedantic, the Special Naval Landing Force weren't 'marines', but rather naval infantry.
  • Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• You may wish to note that most of the Japanese forces managed to sidestep the American beachhead at Saidor, leading to problems for the Allies down the track.
  • I added a small bit on this, although I will add a bit more on this before taking the article to ACR. I will have to get the sources out from the library again. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• "The Japanese also had a reputation for not taking prisoners" - so did the Australians, unfortunately.
  • Yes, indeed. I'm not sure that it held the same significance in the minds of their opponents, though. I've tried to clarify this a bit. Do you think it needs further explanation? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, that looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• For A class (and beyond, I hope) you might want to dig through the war diaries on the AWM's website to see if you can find some maps of this fighting - Hawkeye might be able to help with this as he found the excellent map of the advance to Fortification Point (the source he used (the 9th Division's report on the campaign) has some not-great quality maps of the region. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added a map for the Lae area and I have hopes of maybe getting something for the Wareo section. SpoolWhippets is working on something at the moment, I think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Nick. As always, you raise some excellent points that will stand the article in good stead for further development. Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • These changes look good to me, and I'm pleased to pass the article. I hope to see this a A class sometime soon ;) As a final suggestion, you might want to flesh out the coverage of the Allied force's technical superiority - this is an interesting an important point, and you could discuss how they made good use of tanks, artillery, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your time with this, Nick. I will look to expand that before ACR. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great work Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)