Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2018 [1].


Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We decided to split the logistics of the campaign off into its own article. I think the results justify the decision. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi

edit
  • P/PP error: Kelly 2003, pp. 354.
  • Allied Geographical Section (1943). . Missing OCLC or similar
  • [I've never noticed an LCCN before. are they a good substitute for ISBN or OCLC?]
  • Casey, Hugh J., ed. (1951). Volume VI, Missing OCLC;
  • Coates, John (1995). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Dod, Karl (1966). Missing OCLC
  • Horner, David (1995). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1978);
  • Horner, David (1978). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1995);
  • Milner, Samuel (1957). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1947). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Paull, Raymond (1958). Pub. too early for ISBN; Missing OCLC
  • Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944). Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1948).. is this the same person, or his son?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1948). "TSort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1950); Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1950). "The Papuan Campaign". Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944); Inconsistent Location (41 with; 1 without) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected all of these. There is no such parameter as |orig-date=; could you change your script to say |orig-year=? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha my face is red. :-) I'll look again at the article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at A-class, and thought that it greatly exceeded the A-class criteria. The edits since then are a solid improvement, and I think that the FA criteria are also met. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is a fantastic addition to our coverage of the Kokoda Track campaign, IMO. I reviewed the article when it was at Milhist ACR and am happy with the changes that have occured since then. I fixed a minor typo and I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I feared that the article would be passed in for lack of response. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye7, some possible tweaks...

Conversions

They are usually metric --> imp, these are the exceptions:
  • establish a roadway 690 metres (2,250 ft) long and 24 feet (7.3 m) wide 2 feet (0.6 m) above the high tide mark
  • 300,000 pounds (140,000 kg) of vital supplies
  • 4 inches (100 mm)
  • 4,480 pounds (2,030 kg) of biscuits and 4,200 pounds (1,900 kg)
All corrected. The decision was to use metric as the primary measurement throughout. Historically, the campaign was fought is a confusing mix of imperial and US measurements. Changed the 4 inches conversion to cm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Style with/without hyphens and metre v metres, some examples
  • 5,700,000 cubic metres (2,000,000 grt) v 12,920-cubic-metre (4,561 grt)
  • 1,524 by 30 metres (5,000 by 100 ft) v 1,402-by-30-metre (4,600 by 100 ft)
  • 25-centimetre (10 in) v 20 centimetres (8 in)
    Per MOS:HYPHEN, the hyphens are used in the adjectival form, which is enforced by the {{convert}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Metres - they convert to feet eg 2,000 metres (6,500 ft) but there is one that converts to yards

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tweaks - and explanations from which I learn so much:) - JennyOz (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Between this review and the A-Class and GA reviews, this has had a lot of eyes now. Just to note: not all of the images have alt text. For consistency, it should be all or none, but that is not enough to delay promotion. Finally, I'm slightly surprised that no-one has mentioned the length of this article, but again that is no reason to delay. Sarastro (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.