Talk:Battle of Isurava

Redirecting page

I have redirected this page to Kokoda Track campaign#Battle of Isurava as the section there has far more detailed information and is a superior article. However, the references from the page prior to redirecting are copied below for anyone wishing to rewrite the page. It does need rewriting; the original AFC decline was for not writing in a formal style. SpinningSpark 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Brune,P. We band of Brothers: a biography of Ralph Honner soldier and statesman(Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 2000)
• Brune,P. These Ragged Bloody Heroes: From the Kokoda Trail to Gona Beach 1942(Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1991)
• Fitzsimmons, P. Kokoda(Hodder Australia, 2004)
• Lindsay,P. The Spirit of Kokoda then and now (Hardie Grant Books, Melbourne 2003, 2004)
• McDonald, N. Damien Parer's War(Lothian Books, Melbourne 1994, 2004)
• Kokoda (2006) the movie

Secondary references

• Taylor, L. Snake Road: a guide to the history, people and places of the Sogeri District (A Sogeri Publication by Lance Taylor, Boroko 1992)
• The Track a feature screenplay by Peter Nelson (2009) listed under Aust.Writers' Guild Reg. 11114
• The Brave a feature screenplay by Peter Nelson (2009) listed under Aust.Writers' Guild Reg. 11113 Merotorious mention in Action On Film International Film Festival (2008)

Assessment

User:Spinningspark, ok just wanted to talk about this. It was confusing to me why this was even a redirect; its well-written and notable. But I thought the assessment was worthy because the article as a whole is B. But I do understand your argument. I guess the more important question then is if it should be its own page? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What is well-written and notable? The article that used to be here before it was redirected? You cannot assess a page on the basis of what used to be there. Frankly, at your rate of assessment of an article every 30 seconds I question whether your assessments have any meaning at all. You cannot even be reading them. The page is currently a redirect, there can be no argument about its assessment, it doesn't qualify for one. End of story, it really doesn't matter about anything else.

I redirected it because the material at Kokoda Track campaign is more informative, better written, and better sourced. It may well deserve its own article, but it is pointless having one that is actually less informative than an already existing article. SpinningSpark 21:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Intention to rewrite/re-create

G'day all, I have been slowly creating separate articles for the battles of the Kokoda Track campaign. So far I've written: Battle of Kokoda, Battle of Eora Creek – Templeton's Crossing, Battle of Mission Ridge – Brigade Hill, Battle of Ioribaiwa and Battle of Oivi–Gorari. My editing hasn't been consistent over the past few months due to long hours at work impacting upon my motivation to write; however, I will try to put something together over the next week or two. It will probably be a stub (albeit a well referenced one) at first, but I intend to flesh it out over a couple of weeks. Does anyone have any concerns about this approach? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you write it as a draft in the first instance? As I commented above, there is already detailed information of the battle in the Kokoda Track campaign. It seems counterproductive to me to create a new article that actually has less information, which I presume would be the case with a stub. The page should be recreated when it can give more detailed information than the parent article. SpinningSpark 07:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning that it would be counterproductive. I'd have thought that a stub could actually stimulate effort, much like a red link can (indeed, if I had seen the Battle of Isurava stub when it was first created, I'd have worked on it then, rather than focusing on the parent article but I didn't because it was hidden behind the redirect). Nevertheless, my intention was not to create a long term stub/start article. It was to build it up over a week or two, as I have done with the other five battle articles in the series per the discussion at Talk:Kokoda Track campaign. Like I said, it would be stub/start class article at first for a couple of days, but would be built up to a full B class article over a week or so depending upon how busy I get at work, or how tired I am at the end of the day. That said, if you're truly opposed to this approach, I will just work on it offline. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at it from the point of view of a reader who looks up Battle of Isurava while you are still constructing the article. They will find just a stub without realising we have a lot more information available. The needs of readers should come first, and above the convenience of editors. Tell you what, why don't you put a hatnote on the page while it is still a stub {{further|Kokoda Track campaign#Battle of Isurava}} which will show as

Further information: Kokoda Track campaign § Battle of Isurava

SpinningSpark 11:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I'd support recreation as a stub and building it up over time as the topic is clearly notable. Surely most of our FA/A/GA articles started in exactly that way? At any rate as we can see Rupert has recently written a bunch of articles on the campaign (i.e. Kokoda, Eora Creek – Templeton's Crossing, Mission Ridge – Brigade Hill, Ioribaiwa and Oivi–Gorari, all of which are fully referenced and written to a good standard over a relatively short time so I see no reason to believe that this would be a perma-stub. Anotherclown (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Copy edits

I have made a series of edits to break up some large sentences with a view to making the article more readable (I'm guilty of it too). I have tried to preserve the original text and sense as much as possible. Hope this is the case. Also tried to put "the Gap" in a better perspective. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

And thanks AR for a little tidying up after me Cinderella157 (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for this. My writing style tends towards long sentences, which is a product of my Arts degree, I suspect, which even 12 years of military report writing hasn't managed to beat out of me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 and Anotherclown: G'day, I'm thinking about putting this up for A-class review. Is there anything you think needs doing before that? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing jumps out at me. I'd say its in the ball park for ACR and I'm sure it would get some good feedback to encourage further development. I'll certainly chip in there if you decide to take it there. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

fact check/reconcile differences

From aftermarth: "An order to assume defensive operations and to withdraw towards Kokoda was eventually given to Horii on 8 September." I don't have ready access to the two references cited at at about this point but I do have access to Bullard (see p 159-166 specifically p 160) (Battle of Buna–Gona Background section)

"In light of reverses at Guadalcanal, Lieutenant General Harukichi Hyakutake determined he could not support both battles and, on 23 September,[22] ordered Horii to withdraw his troops on the Kokoda Track until the issue at Guadalcanal was decided."

Might want to confirm dates and possibly reconcile differences since there is a long time between 8 and 23 and that Japanese were still advancing after 8SEP ie Ioribaiwa Ridge? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You can source this from Bullard, since you have it. On 8 September (p. 165) XVII Army orders the 41st Regiment to fall back on Kokoda. On 23 September (pp. 184-185) XVII Army orders it to fall back to Buna. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

G'day all, I made the following edit based on this: [1] Please let me know if you are happy with this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This is good. I always prefer to say "23 September" instead of "late September" because it allows people to paraphrase the Wikipedia. It's also good that it says "the Japanese high command ordered". Under the circumstances, orders took a couple of days to reach Horii. But I would have said "XVII Army" rather than "high command" because a reader might infer that we are talking about IGHQ in Tokyo. Note that XVII Army was responsible for Guadalcanal as well as Papua until XVIII Army took over Papua in November 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

From Bullard[2] (p142[p151 of pdf]) @Hawkeye7, our pages appear to be different but this is what I found.

"Headquarters of the 17th Army ordered the commander of the South Seas Force on 8 September to assemble the 41st Infantry Regiment in the Kokoda area, owing to the worsening situation of the campaign in the Solomon Islands. Furthermore, the commander was ordered on 14 September to give highest priority to stationing a battalion in Buna to guard against enemy landings in the area. However, either the orders did not reach the force commander, or they were ignored."

So I am thinking that the reference to 8Sep needs to be a little circumspect since this was a particular part of his force and not all of it. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

James p. 212 says "...on 8 September the Japanese commanders at Rabaul signaled Horii to withdraw his force back to Kokoda", which seems pretty definitive, but perhaps we could say "begin withdrawing" and add the Bullard ref? Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

An order to assume defensive operations and to withdraw towards Kokoda was sent to Horii on 8 September. The situation on Guadalcanal worsened for the Japanese and further resources and manpower were diverted to that effort instead.

I am making the suggestion above that uses a footnote to reconcile the differences between what is reported in James and Bullard. Can I suggest you confirm the pages in Bullard (here and the other citation pp 184-185 OR pp 159-160) for yourself since the pages Hawkeye and I am quoting for the same text are different. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Multi ref

@user: AustralianRupert Hi, just my thoughts on this. I try to combine when there are more than two endnotes togeather given feedback I got when working on Buna-Gona but it is not worth the hassle for just two. Cheers Cinderella157 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day, to be honest, that doesn't seem consistent to me, which is one of the A-class criteria. That said, I could be wrong. Is there any policy direction, or template documentation, that you know of that clarifies when sfm should be used? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not aware of anything specific except that the article was criticised for multiple notes togeather making it less readable. The consistency is that the number of notes in a cluster is limited to two - unless there is a limitation in being able to use the sfnm. I would have thought the A-class criteria of consistency of referencing applies to whether inline or footnotes are used rather than how this is achieved. I'm not hung up on the revert but thought I might say why I had done it since it is the only one where there is a cluster of more than two notes. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

G'day, yes I think overall the use of sfnm does improve readability. Anyway, I've had a go at implementing it for this article for all instances of multiple book refs (two or more, which is what I think the intention of the template is). I couldn't seem to find a way to get it to work for websites, and think it would probably look a bit funky even if I could get that to work. Anyway, sorry for the dramas...all the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a drama at all. I just thought to explain why I had only done it to that cluster. Sfn doesn't work well for websites. That is why I use ref tags for them and sfn for pretty much any other works with an author name and year. It is also a reason why I only do it where there are more than two notes, because there are instances where there will be footnotes as well as citations and/or websites. There will be a number of instances where there will be a cluster two and sometimes three notes even after using sfnm. It therefore seems (for me) to be a reasonable (though arbitrary) basis for how I deal with using sfnm. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)