Talk:Landing at Saidor/GA1
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I think the lead would bear combining paras one and two
- is there a link for GHQ? And provide in full at first mention?
- There is no link - the best we have is South West Pacific Area (command), which is already linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- suggest "With this operation completed" instead of "With the battle of Finschhafen won", there is tension and repetition between "Battle of Finschhafen" in one sentence and "battle of Finschhafen" one sentence later
- suggest "his seaward left flank" instead of "his seaborne left flank". His flank wasn't actually seaborne, was it?
- suggest "The opportunity to destroy"
- what was Operation Backhander? A brief explanation would be helpful here, as it hasn't been mentioned before.
same with Alamo Force., which should probably just be "Alamo Force" not "the Alamo Force"
- link Milne Bay
- Finschhafen is overlinked
- link Bogadjim
- link Sio, Papua New Guinea
- General Martin should just be Martin
- the assault on Cape Gloucester hasn't been mentioned previously. I know it is Backhander, but this just underlines why it needs to be spelt out earlier.
- what were the operations at Arawe and Long Island? link?
- Linked Arawe operation. We don't have one for the landing on Long Island. Do you want a red link? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Only if it is notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Linked Arawe operation. We don't have one for the landing on Long Island. Do you want a red link? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- General Krueger should just be Krueger
- per MOS:TIME, 0650 should either be 06:50 or 6.50 am, same for other timings
- do we know the destroyers involved in the naval gunfire support?
- LCP(R)?
- Australian-designed ARC mesh?
- suggest "American casualties on the day of the landing" I know D-Day is really generic, but given the primacy of 6 June 1944, it could be confusing.
- General Adachi should be Adachi
- is Hidemitsu Nakano likely to be notable? Redlink?
- General Nakano should just be Nakano
- link Hansa Bay at first mention
- the Minderi River
- "the Task Force" which task force? Not sure about the initial caps.
- ALAMO Force should be Alamo Force, a couple of examples of this
- should the 128th Infantry be 128th Infantry Regimental Combat Team?
- Nope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Then it should probably be 128th Infantry Regiment at first mention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- did the Hansa Bay operation have a name?
- Task Force again
- The Australian historian...
- should "1st Battalion, 128th Infantry" be "1st Battalion Combat Team, 128th Infantry"?
- Nope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- But you have "1st and 3rd Battalion Combat Teams" elsewhere? I'm not familiar with the difference between US regiments and RCTs and US battalions and BCTs, but you should probably be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- An infantry regiment was a unit with a fixed Table of Organisation and Equipment (TOE). It varied during the war, but was 3,087 men in January 1944. For certain operations a regimental combat team (RCT) would be created by attaching artillery, engineers, medical, signals, etc. The regimental combat teams were ad hoc formations created for specific missions. The same applied to battalions. Each regiment had three battalions, and these could become the nucleus of a battalion combat team (BCT) by attaching combat support units. Normally a RCT or BCT would only be required if the regiment or battalion was operating separately from its parent division, or the division was spread out over a large area. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- But you have "1st and 3rd Battalion Combat Teams" elsewhere? I'm not familiar with the difference between US regiments and RCTs and US battalions and BCTs, but you should probably be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- link First lieutenant, sergeant, lieutenant colonel and staff sergeant
- suggest "attempted to make their way back"
- to avoid the repetitious "but", suggest ending sentence at "American lines."
- suggest "the landing" instead of "D-Day"
- how did the Cub get there?
- Task Force again
- The images appear to have valid licences.
That's me done. Placing on hold for comments to be addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments by JennyOz
- Landing Craft, Personnel (Ramped) - goes to a dab page
- That stuff we call ARC reo is called rebar elsewhere - so you could use reinforcing steel (which redirects to Rebar) instead of the mesh link?
- This is ARC mesh, not ARC rebar. ARC mesh looks like chicken wire, but with larger hexagons and a much stronger gauge wire. It is ubiquitously used in fencing. I found the right article, which is called chain-link fencing. But in this case it was laid on the sand to allow vehicles to drive over it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for another interesting article Hawkeye. JennyOz (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Ditto Hawkeye. An interesting little operation. Looking forward to reading more about other operations of this campaign. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, and is illustrated by appropriately license images with appropriate captions. Passing. Just a query before I do that; this article was assessed as A-Class for Milhist and other projects back in 2009. It has obviously changed quite a lot since then. Do you see it being brought back to GA-class for all projects now and possibly later going through Milhist ACR again? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)