Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal edit

I believe this article on a large naval battle from World War II meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article (FA) status. The article has been through a peer and good article review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. The article was also reviewed under the guidelines at WP:WTA. I'm standing by to respond to any suggestions, comments, or requests. This is a self-nomination. Cla68 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 37KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style

Support, excellent article; all of the issues raised during the peer review have been resolved. I think, incidentally, this might set a new record (132!) for footnotes. Kirill Lokshin 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work. Rlevse 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~on wheels~~. An outstanding article that deserves its FA star!! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well referenced. Suggest convenience links for books (e.g. Amazon Online Reader). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added links for as many of the books as I could find with that feature available on Amazon. Cla68 20:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Object~~. Citations for works listed in the "References" section should only have the minimum info necessary to identify the work. Usually the authors last name is sufficient, supplemented with year of publication, in the case that more than one work for that author is listed. So for example there is no need, and bad style, to include al those titles in the notes. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree here. The titles are useful as a recognition factor, since someone familiar with the literature regarding this topic can more readily identify the work being cited (without having to also consult the alphabetical list of references) if the title is included directly in the footnote. (And, to be slightly pedantic, "Last name, Title, page number." is the exact footnote format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style.) Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with objection per Kirill Lokshin. The additional info helps easily verify material without having to keep referring up to the references section. I would even go for more information, but would not require it. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style does call for "last name, title, page number" for each footnote. More information can be added, but not less. For example, if you look at Franks' book, one of the main sources that the article uses, he not only uses the last name, title, and page number in each footnote but also includes a brief quotation or explanation of the substance of the source cited. Cla68 22:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about notes used for citation when there is a separate "References" section which gives complete bibliographic information. I am not talking about so called "content" notes, used for providing explanatory information. I can't see where our WP:MOS recommends adding titles, can you point it out to me? If so then I will withdraw my objection. Paul August ☎ 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our MoS, quite correctly, says nothing at all about what the content of footnotes should look like (beyond the obvious point that it must somehow identify the work being cited); the choice of which format to follow is left to the individual editor. In this case, said editorial discretion has resulted in adopting the Chicago style. I cannot find anything in WP:MOS which would suggest that this is not a perfectly acceptable course of action. Kirill Lokshin 23:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Footnotes guidance clearly states that the Chicago Manual of Style for footnotes is acceptable. Cla68 01:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy of the Chicago MoS handy. But in my experience it is normal to give bibliographic information in notes only when there is no separate "References" section or Bibliography. Are you sure that isn't the situation the Chicago MoS is referring to? Paul August ☎ 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite (I just checked again); you might be thinking of previous editions of the CMoS, which did use the "last name, page number" form. In any case, from the fifteenth edition: "The short form, as distinct from an abbreviation, should include enough information to remind readers of the full title or to lead them to the appropriate entry in the bibliography..." (16.41), "The most common short form consists of the last name of the author and the main title of the work cited, usually shortened if more than four words..." (16.42), and "First note citation in a work with full bibliography: 1. Doniger, Splitting the Difference, 23." (16.3, emphasis theirs). Kirill Lokshin 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I withdraw my objection. Paul August ☎ 21:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A separate bibliography or references section is necessary with the Chicago MoS because the footnotes omit important information, such as the copyright date of the source, the publisher, the author's full name, the ISBN number, place of publishing, full webpage address, etc. Cla68 02:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is a first-rate article. The only concern I have is that almost all the cited references appear to come from just two books. --Nick Dowling 01:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those two books are the best two books (at least that I found) on the subject. Both use extensive primary sources, especially the Frank book which uses original research into Japanese documents by the author. But, several key points in the article are attributed to a third source (the Hara book) that represents a firsthand account of the battle from a Japanese participant and is used as a source for 16 different assertions in the article. Cla68 02:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources listed are well regarded and highly reputable.--Nick Dowling 02:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- excellent work. Jkelly 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A citation spot check performed on this article turned up two minor issues out of five footnotes sampled. (Results are here.) Neither seems to be indicative of any systemic problems, so just fixing those should be enough. If those get fixed, consider this a support; I greatly enjoyed the article. --Robth^Talk 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the constructive feedback. I've fixed the two items. Cla68 13:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I now fully support.

Support A truely wonderful article to read. I loved every minute of it. TomStar81 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long, inlince citations and maps. One note: merge notes with references, it will be more logical that way (after all, notes ARE references, aren't they?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. A very good article though I have some concerns:
1. I detect a pro-Allied stance either from the writer or creeping through from sources that describe the battle from the viewpoint of the Allied ships. Note the use of the word "sudden" or "suddenly": "Suddenly...Akatsuki and Hiei turned on large searchlights ", "Two of the U.S. destroyers now met a sudden demise", "Laffey... suddenly encountered", "Monssen...was suddenly accosted", "Sterett was suddenly ambushed", and "South Dakota suddenly suffered" all refer to unfortunate events happening to the Allied vessels, with "Washington suddenly hit Kirishima" being an exception. Meanwhile, "Amatsukaze didn't notice" and "Yudachi... appeared totally unaware". I believe that equally valid wordings might be "Sterrett was unaware" or "Amatsukaze was ambushed". The aggregate implication of the word choice is that bad things just happened to the Allies while the Japanese were incompetent, which if true needs to be stated explicitly.
2. Minor issues: (1) the previous bombardment of Henderson Field on 13 October 1942 is not mentioned and (2) according the combinedfleet.com record of movement I used to expand Kongo, she was providing "distant cover" to the battle but I find no mention of her, or a force of which she may have been a part. - BT 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is difficult to completely avoid a slightly pro-Allied stance for several reasons: Most of the English-language sources are written by authors who are glad that the Allies won the war, not the Japanese, and, much fewer Japanese sources exist that have been translated into English and/or are widely available. However, in spite of those obstacles I felt that I had accomplished giving equal coverage to the significant actions, plans, strategies, and motivations of the Japanese side, but I'll review the specific text you mention to see if some sentences can be worded differently.

2. In an article already as long as it is on such a large and complex event, it's difficult to choose which details should be included and which should be omitted. I'm including a description of the Oct 13, 1942 bombardment incident in the background section for the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, because I think it more directly affects that earlier battle in the same campaign. As for this article, several large Japanese ships provided "distant" cover, but otherwise had no impact on the course or outcome of the battle at all. Kongo fits into that category. I tried to include only details that had some impact on the actual outcome of the battle. Cla68 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I removed some of the subjective wording that you specified. Cla68 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)My concern, perhaps not clearly expressed, is over what I feel is a lack of Japanese perspective when attributing perceptions of the combatants, which is not the same as rooting for the Japanese. The article consistently takes the viewpoint of a captain/s on an Allied vessel - so if he was surprised by an attack, the article states the attack was "sudden". If a Japanese commander was surprised by an attack, the article still views the engagement through the eyes of the Allied commander, describing how his opponent didn't seem to notice as he approached. Note that I do not doubt that the article is factually correct, just with a viewpoint that I feel should be minimized to the extent possible. This is admittedly a subtle point, but I noticed it quite clearly within a few paragraphs of the battle description. Reading between the lines of your response, it seems that this is a reflected bias of the sources used. It would be unreasonable of me to demand Japanese language sources for an otherwise fine article and I support promotion to FA status. - BT 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written, informative article. As far as I can see, it meets all the criterias of a FA. Good work! --The monkeyhate 18:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the links in: [[November 12]]–[[15]], [[1942]]. They do not work with preferences and will look bizarre for some users. bobblewik 19:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cla68 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]