Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Milne Bay/GA1

< Talk:Battle of Milne Bay
Latest comment: 12 years ago by AustralianRupert in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago76 comments6 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 02:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate you taking this one on. Just so that it is nice and official, I am co-noming this with Hawkeye7. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll be taking this in small bits because of its size. These comments cover everything up to the Battle section.

  • Wasn't Magic the name for the Japanese code-breaking effort?
    • Comment. According to Drea 1992 MacArthur's ULTRA p. xi MAGIC was the codename given to American efforts to break the Japanese diplomatic codes, while ULTRA referred to "special intelligence", i.e. SIGINT (although the use of this codeword in the Pacific didn't gain currency until 1944 Drea seems to use it interchangably to avoid confrusion). Regardless, Drea specifically refers to the Allies use of ULTRA at Milne Bay on page 40 (and others) so I think this is probably ok here. The confusion is understandble though. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The conversion from 252 sq km is screwed up some how. That's not equal to 157,000 miles.
  • Spell out that the real Fall River is in Massachusetts (if that's the one that y'all meant).
  • Link wharf, platoon, battery, battalion, regiment
    • Done wharf, platoon and battalion. I couldn't find an appropriate place for battery or regiment as the only mentions are when they are part of a unit name and I was concerned that it would be an example of a WP:EASTEREGG as the reader clicking on them would think they were going to a page on the unit itself. Happy to adjust if you think necessary, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Hyphenate anti-aircraft and don't capitalize it unless part of a unit title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) (As an apologia for weaseling out on my offer of a free book.)Reply

  • Are duplicate linkages good practice? I have noted Militia and Second Australian Imperial Force linked both in lede and further down.
    • Yes. The lead should be regarded as separate from the rest of the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Under "Military situation", I note that several place names (Hong Kong, Malaya, Pearl Harbor, Timor, Rabaul) are linked to battles instead of localities, although article seems to refer to localities. Others (Port Moresby, Merauke, Netherlands New Guinea, Owen Stanley Ranges, Australian New Guinea Adminstrative Unit, Fall River) are not linked to battles. In the interests of consistency, shouldn't they all be linked to localities? Readers will still have the opportunity to click further links to the battles. Alternatively, clarify which are battles, which localities.
    • Switched to the names of battles. This may read awkwardly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Reads fine to me.
  • Owen Stanley Ranges is actually singular.
  • The code name "Boston" is sometimes quote-marked, sometimes not.
  • Shouldn't labour-intensive be hyphenated?

More later, once my eyes uncross.

The more later—covering Allies subsection of Prelude section:

  • Pontoon needs disambiguation.
  • "Companies" is a duplicated linkage.
    • Lead stands separate from article. The two sometimes appear separately. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • American engineer units are listed as regiments rather than battalions, thus misstating their size and organization. Additionally, using format of XXth Engineer Battalion (United States) would link directly instead of using a redirect.
    • No, that would be wrong. The American engineer units were regiments, with two numbered battalions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Linked articles state that 43rd did not become a regiment until 16 March 1943, the 46th two days later. During Battle of Milne Bay, they seemed to be battalions.
        • No, they weren't. By "43rd Engineers" and "46th Engineers" is meant a regiment. The term regiment is normally dropped. Moreover, I checked the primary sources and they were referred to as "Engineer General Service Regiment" at the time, even though officially they were 43rd Engineers (General Service).
          • Then how about fudging this admittedly muddled situation (featuring one branch of U. S. government saying one thing, another saying something else) by changing on-screen names to "43rd Engineers" and "46th Engineers"? You may want to change to "96th Engineers" also for consistency's sake.
  • Similar situation exists for PSP. Using Marsden Matting would link directly and skip redirect.
  • Kittyhawk can be any one of fourteen items, as can be seen by its disambiguation page. Using Curtiss P-40 Warhawk for linkage is clearer and skips redirect.
    • It is correctly linked to "P-40 Warhawk". The Warhawk was never used in SWPA, only the Kittyhawk. Using Warhawk would be wrong. Doesn't the Warhawk article make the distinction between the two clear? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • I have always thought of a P-40 as a P-40, never mind the model name, but concede the point.
  • If Kittyhawk usage is changed, so should Zero to Mitsubishi A6M Zero, for consistency's sake.
    • Correctly linked to Zero. Same as above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Paragraph about malaria (6th para in subsection) is unclear. Result(s) of haphazard precautions need to be clear. Also, just what is so important about Fairley's action(s)? After reading about him, I still don't know why his part in this is germane.
    • That is what the paragraph is all about. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • This is what this para is unclear about to this reader. Questions abound. Did a lot of men come down with malaria, or only a few? Was any unit incapacitated by malaria? Did a malaria epidemic slow construction? Prevent defense? Also, did Fairley's aid effort arrive ahead of serious malaria problems? Or during? Or too late? Did it prevent spread of the disease? Cure it? Or was it ineffectual? Point being, it must have had some effect, or it wouldn't have been mentioned. However, the effects are not given.
        • It should all be explained in the Results section below. Added a few more words about Neil's role. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • The "few more words" amount to an excellent rewrite adding much-needed clarity.

Now, I've gone bug-eyed. Need another break. To quote someone referred to in this article, "I shall return".

And back over to me in Denver.

  • Link 46th Engineer General Service Regiment unless it's a typo for the 96th.
  • Put a comma after light cruisers, after three destroyers and transports in the 3rd sentence of the Initial Landing section.
  • This is awkward: US Fifth Air Force B-25s, B-26s and B-17s I'd suggest B-25s, B-26s and B-17s of the US Fifth Air Force and I'd suggest getting rid of the nominalizations (-ing words) by changing them to killed, destroyed, etc. and modifying the sentence as appropriate.
  • What's a Field Company?
    • An engineer unit. I've added that in front of it, but TBH I think it might be a bit redundant with the term "sappers of" there already. Let me know what you think. PS, as a sapper, I think everyone should know the word! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • It should have! I have reworded it to make it less awkward. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Do we know the name of the destroyer?
    • I've asked Nick-D to take a look at this, as I believe he has the source for this. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Collie and Marutani say that it was Tenryū. However, as this was actually a light cruiser, and the Japanese official history names the ship as actually being Hamakaze and states that it didn't actually land any supplies. I've re-written this material accordingly (I've found that Collie and Marutani need to be cited with care as they don't seem to have checked the facts in their book as closely as they should have and don't name their sources). Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Do not hyphenate dive bomber. And link it.
  • In eight dive-bombers and 12 Zero fighter escorts, change the "and" to "with"
  • In 30 and 50 calibre be sure to add the decimal in front of the numbers.
  • What kind of warships did the shelling at Gili Gili?
    • My sources do not seem to identify specifically, but they do earlier mention what type of ships were in the convoy, so I've added that in the paragraph above. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • This seems a bit redundant: The 2/9th, initially with orders to join them, was eventually delayed an extra day after an erroneous intelligence report from MacArthur's headquarters warned Clowes of a renewed Japanese attack forced the Australians to briefly adopt a more defensive posture; the result was that the 2/9th was held back a day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

"I have returned." Prelude section, Japanese sub-section:

  • Not really incorrect...however, it could be useful to know how close Samarai was/is to Milne Bay. It could illustrate the interference that Milne Bay's installations would present to Japanese plans.
    • Not sure. Samarai Island is in the China Strait, south east of Milne Bay. It isn't very far at all. 5 or 6 miles maybe? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Adding a phrase such as "within a few miles of Milne Bay" could help illustrate the problems the Milne Bay installations would present to the Japanese. It would also give reason for the necessity for their attack on Milne Bay.
  • The rank "Major General" is linked for Kenney, just as it was for Clowes in the subsection above it.
    • I'm not sure what to do with this one as they are linked to two different articles, one being the Australian version of the rank and the other the American. What does everyone think? Happy to do whatever the majority thinks is appropriate. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

On to the Battle section:

  • Initial landing subsection: Did the botched Japanese landing put them closer to the Australian/U.S. forces, or further away? How did being in the wrong place affect the Japanese plann of attack?
    • It placed them further away from the airfields, I've added a clause to this affect. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Japanese advance inland subsection: Is the identity of the Japanese ships shelling the Australians known? I also would suggest the following re-punctuation/slight rewrite for clarity's sake: "...sticky bombs, but due to the humid conditions the bombs failed to adhere to the Japanese armour." Further down, I would suggest clarification of just whom was being illuminated by flares—the Aussies themselves? the attacking Japanese? both sides? With these exceptions, this is an excellently written subsection.
    • Unfortunately, none of my sources identify the ships that shelled the Australians here. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • I've tweaked the wording (both for the sticky bombs and the illumination). AustralianRupert (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • This may be overkill on the clarity issue, but I suggest that the comma after the phrase "four frontal attacks" become either a semi-colon or a period. In the latter case, capitalize "however" to make the trailing clause into its own sentence. Either way, a run-on sentence is cured. Also, as part of the illumination tweak, "...the first Japanese attack was repelled by heavy machine-gun fire fire..." would be the tiniest bit clearer. Finally—is it "machine-gun" or "machine gun" in Australian usage?
    • I've split the sentence as you suggest. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • "machine-gun" per the Macquarie dictionary, so I've changed it to that. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Ooops. I went through and replaced them with "machine gun" per the APS style guide. Feel free to revert. The Army web site has it three different ways. I think they have the same people doing it as the RAAF. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Next subsection: Australian counterattack

  • You might want to unload that portmanteau sentence that begins "After passing through the 61st Infantry..." I would suggest ending the sentence after "...Milne Bay;". Suggested next sentence: "As the Australians went, they were harassed by snipers and ambush parties." Third sentence: "Japanese soldiers used the pretence of death before attacking Australians who came close."
  • In the following sentence, an emendment to "...systematically bayoneted and shot..." would square that sentence with Sergeant Traill's quote further down in the subsection.
  • Further down, instead of "In a contact that the Australians initiated on their surprised enemy...", how about a simple "In a surprise attack, the Australians inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanese." Second sentence: "After the battle..." etc.
  • Instead of "By this time..." etc., how about "The Japanese wanted to hold off the Australians long enough for the headquarters to be evacuated."
    • I've reworked this. I feel that the "By this time" construction is necessary, though, as it demonstrates a transition. Happy to discuss if you disagree. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Ah, so the Japanese were trying to evacuate in their entirety; it wasn't just their headquarters.
  • Suggest "occur" or "happen" in place of "eventuate".
    • I've left this, as I think eventuate works in the context. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • It's just that "eventuate" is so stuffy and off-putting.
  • Two sentences further on, "that" can be excised, leaving "...which stated, "We have reached...", etc.
  • Sentence beginning "Throughout the day, they worked...." Who worked? Japanese or Australians?
  • Link for "posthumously" needs correction.
  • Finally, it might be a nice touch to quote at least some of French's VC citation in some manner. Courage deserves its tribute.
    • Added a little bit. It might need tweaking. Please let me know what you think. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

More later. It's almost 2 AM here.

Georgejdorner (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Don't capitalize Station Hospital unless that's a formal title.
  • During the Australian counterattack comma after counterattack.
  • The Australians placed Japanese casualties Suggest "estimated" rather than "placed".
  • There's a misplaced word here: and a posed threat to the base.
  • the reverse at Milne Bay Suggest "defeat" in lieu of reverse. And "victory" in lieu of "result" in this: The effect that the result had

That's pretty much it for me. Lemme know whenever you're done, George. I'd suggest an ACR after we finish going over this with a fine-tooth comb.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

On to the "Japanese withdrawal":

  • And it looks just fine to me.

Next, "Base development" subsection of "Aftermath" section.

  • Link to coastal guns (155 millimetre) connects to article on French artillery. Is this truly what you meant? If so, your sentence probably should mention their Gallic provenance.
    • Those were American guns; I don't think that anything further is needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Just as the Australian Bofors guns were of a Swedish design. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • I thought the linkage should be to 155 mm Long Tom, but further reading convinces me that it could be either model of 155, as the Long Tom was just coming into usage to replace the Canon de 155mm GPF. Is it known which model was used at Milne Bay? Or should this linkage be deleted because of uncertainty?
          • G'day, the footnote to the information in Milner states that they were GPFs, so I think that the link is correct. This is the text of the note: "Memo, Gen Chamberlin for Gen Vasey, 10 Sep 42, sub: 155-mm. GPF Guns for Milne Bay..." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I would suggest "A weather record...." or "A meterological record...." to clarify the extraordinary rainfall.
  • In American usage, the term for a staging area for an airplane is "hardstand"—one word, no hyphen. Is that also true for Australian usage?

"War crimes" subsection:

  • Link to "Moscow Declaration" leaves me baffled. The Moscow Declaration seems to pertain to Nazi German war crimes. How then did its scope get extended to the Japanese? Wouldn't an explanation be helpful (that is, if the reason is known to the authors)?
    • Japan was considered to be a satellite state of Germany. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • That is obviously not apparent from the article. Why not add something to help the reader make that leap of cognition?
        • I've reordered the sentence a little. Please let me know if helps to make it clearer. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Curiosity question: Were the war crimes investigated at Milne Bay the first known instance of Japanese war crimes during WWII? Why were they such a shock–if indeed they were. It might be useful to know this, as it may have had a bearing on ongoing Aussie attitudes toward Japanese soldiers and sailors.
    • They were not the first. Perhaps the best known was the Bataan Death March, but it wasn't the first either. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • The question is not one of which atrocities were committed first, but when knowledge of Japanese atrocities spread and affected Aussie soldiers' attitudes. Why were the Milne Bay war crimes so influential?

I just realized my coverage of the Results section got blown into cyberspace by an edit war. So, once more:

  • I believe the para on the effects of malaria on the campaign are outstanding. Military history usually glosses over the effects of disease to a military force, and skips right to the blood and gore of dead and wounded.
  • I do believe that the para on battle honours should be moved to the end because it is chronologically last of the paras. One more section dubbed Legacy might be added, including this para and a bit about the importance of French's VC, which was one of the first won in WWII.
    • I have moved the paragraph so that it follows chronologically. I haven't, at this stage, split it out into another subsection. I'm mindfull of writing too much about French's VC as I'm concerned that to do so might be undue focus. As an aside, French's VC wasn't the first in WWII for the Australians: there were a number in 1941 and early 1942. Along with Bruce Kingsbury's award, French's VC was one of the first two to be awarded for actions on Australian territory. French's was gazetted first, but Kingsbury's actions were performed before French's. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to end by thanking the editors for an informative article about a battle that was basically unknown to me. We Americans tend to focus on Guadalcanal, and don't notice Milne Bay.

I may have picked some mighty fine nits in my above commentary, but I was not quibbling. I had the aim of seeing an already excellent article improved.

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate you taking the time to review, George, and your comments. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'm passing this now; y'all did an excellent job.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Milne_Bay/GA1&oldid=466109052"