Talk:Battle of Labuan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ceradon (talk · contribs) 18:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Comment - I'll be doing a bit of copyediting here and there. Correct as you feel necessary but please note any reverts here :). --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've reverted the change you made stating that the Australians were bombarded: they were actually the ones doing the bombarding (no source says that the Japanese had any artillery at all) Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - @Nick-D: I'll be able to tackle the Battle (and maybe even the Aftermath) section either sometime tonight or definitely tomorrow afternoon. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - @Nick-D: good work here. Passing... --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your detailed review - I really appreciate it Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• "greatly-outnumbered" - why the dash?
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• "prepared position" - what does that mean? It was fortified?
  • Yes, that's right: tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• At the end of the first paragraph, you should probably include who was captured on the Australian side as well. Perhaps even include the wounded for both belligerents.
  • No-one was captured on the Australian side, and as there isn't a figure for the number of Japanese wounded available I'd rather not only include the Australian figure in the lead (given the nature of the Pacific War and the mentality of the Japanese military it's likely that many of the Japanese wounded were killed by their comrades as this was seen as preferable to surrendering). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ceradon: I've responded to these comments - do you have any others? Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Background

• "Singapore and Shanghai" - explain why the Allies needed this area under their control.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Preparations

• "The 9th Division's staff completed their plans for operations in the Brunei Bay area on 16 May." - the impression I get is that they were finished operating in Borneo Bay on May 16, which is oxymoronic if they still were going to operate in Labuan a month later. If you mean that they were finished planning for the Borneo operations, please reword for clarity.
  • I'm afraid that I don't follow your comment here - the invasion didn't start until 10 June. The 9th Division staff completed their plans for the operation on 16 May. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'm seeing random changes in the tense of this section. You could be talking about preparations but suddenly use "did not" and "formed" instead of "would not" or "was not planned to" or "would form".
  • Fixed, I think Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• "had a poor relationship" - please give examples. "because of past arguments" perhaps or something similar?
  • The source doesn't really say unfortunately - it seems that they simply didn't get on. I've expanded on this a bit though as the conflict spread to their HQ staff. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Porter and the 2/28th Battalion's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Hugh Norman, had a poor relationship and Porter considered relieving Norman of command before the landing on Labuan in the belief that he was exhausted and not capable of effectively leading his battalion." - run-on sentence. Change the "and Porter" to "As a result, Porter" or something similar please.
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• "The brigade's objectives" - reading this I'm not sure which brigade you're taking about. Please clarify. If you're talking about the 2/11th Commando then put "The squadron's objectives".
  • The 24th Brigade, which is identified as the subject of the para in the first sentence (the next sentence states that the 2/11th Commando was in reserve). I don't think that it's necessary to repeatedly refer to the unit by its full name here Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• "the Army's" - which army? Please clarify.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• "garrison of Labuan" - the Japanese garrison or the Australian? Please clarify.
  • There could not be an Australian garrison on the island before the invasion, so I think that this is clear as it is Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• I made somewhat of a bold change here and clarified it further to "Japanese garrison on Labuan". I can't see more clarity being a problem. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Japanese staff officers deduced" - I'm pretty sure "deduced" is a word to watch and if it isn't, it should be. Just use "concluded" or "According to Japanese staff officers..." or "Japanese officials believed..."
  • They correctly figured this out from limited intelligence sources, so "deduced" is appropriate. It also isn't listed at WP:WTW. Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• "under strength" - what does that mean? They had less men than they did originally? If so, state so directly please.
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: I've responded to the above comments. Can you please also take care when tweaking the article? You have inadvertently introduced several mistakes (there were no oil fields or rubber plantations on Labuan - these were in the Brunei Bay area; it was intended that the British Pacific Fleet would be based in the Brunei Bay area, not Labuan per-se (the BPF required more infrastructure than the island could have realistically accommodated); and the island began to be used as a base for other offensive operations several days before it was secured). Nick-D (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I should have known better than to make changes withouth the proper sources to ascertain whether what I was changing it to was actually what happened. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle (Landing)

• "official historian" - seems a bit vague. Consider clarifying--specifically what makes him "official".
  • It was his job title (more or less): he had been appointed by the Cabinet to be the editor of the official history of Australia in World War II, and subsequently wrote the volume in the series which covered this battle. I'd rather not link official history here given that it's in the lead of the article on Long, which is linked. Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of the Japanese garrison

• No major issues found.

Aftermath

• No major issues found.

Image review

• Image captions that are full sentences should have periods at the end and vice versa.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• File:No. 1 Squadron RAAF Mosquito (AWM OG3190).jpg: License should include why it's in the public domain in the US.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• File:N borneo ops 1945.jpg: Should have {{Information}} tag on it.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)