Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Kaiapit/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 [1].

Battle of Kaiapit edit

Battle of Kaiapit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A minor but important action from the New Guinea campaign of 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 5: is this one source or two?
  • Kelly: you've included the volume name, but omitted the title of the complete work
  • Given that the Kelly source is self-published, what are Kelly's qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to Willoughby or Coulthard-Clark. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. One source.
  2. Template issues. Corrected.
  3. He was there. Kelly was an RAAF Dakota pilot during World War II, and later served in Malaya and Vietnam. His three volume (so far) history compiles documents from the AWM, NAA and NACP. I regard it highly, and find it completely reliable, but if there is a problem, there are only two references, so I can replace them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed Kelly from the sources. I still regard him as highly reliable as a historian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Left Chris' book out. Added a reference to Willoughby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox checks

  • Alt text: Some images have it, some not -- should be consistent
  • External links: The New Guinea Offensives link seems to just go to the main Official Histories page at AWM rather than the book itself -- probably an old URL
  • Citation bot: Not checked -- timed out on me
  • Dab links, redirects, and ref links: No issues reported

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Suggestions
    • time format: "1230" - probably should be "12:30" per WP:MOSTIME;
    • title format in References: "A Report on War Crimes against Australians committed by individual members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy" - maybe "A Report on War Crimes against Australians Committed by Individual Members of the Armed Forces of the Enemy", per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • possibly redundant: "the lead plane was Captain Frank C. Church, who was considered one of the wing's "hottest" troop carrier pilots.[3] King flew in Church's lead plane." (specifically the second "lead" - perhaps delete it and just say "plane");
    • "Captain King assembled his troops..." - possibly just "King" per WP:SURNAME;
    • possibly a typo: "The company reached Ragitumkiap, a village with striking distance of Kaiapit" (should it be "within striking")?;
    • possibly incorrect caps: "guessed that Maxwell's Section" (probably should be "Maxwell's section");
    • "50 minutes at a time and then rested for ten" (should "ten" be "10" for consistency?)
    • "The Australians suffered 2 killed and 7 wounded" (should these be "two killed and seven wounded" per WP:ORDINAL?);
      • Done.
    • there is some repetition in this image caption: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. Some 214 Japanese dead were counted after the battle." Perhaps reword. Something like this might work: "Japanese dead at Kaiapit. After the battle 214 Japanese bodies were counted by the Australians around their positions." AustralianRupert (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, Rupert, I noticed the repetition too but for some reason no improvement came to me and I left it -- your wording works well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • All my comments have been addressed. I'm pleased to see this battle get some attention. When I first joined the Army, before I crossed to the dark side and became an officer, I went through Kapooka in 12 Platoon, Bravo Coy. The platoon were known as the "Purple Devils" and had an association with the 2/6th Independent Company. Two veterans of Kaiapit, Bill and Eric, used to come to the base and talk to us during our training, and it was then that I first heard about this battle. Anyway, to cut a long story short, good work and thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials look good. Minor copyedit but prose generally seems fine. A few suggestions:

  • Situation
    • That subheading doesn't do much for me for some reason. I know "Military situation" might sound a bit obvious but it reads better to me, or perhaps there's something better still -- just a thought...
    • "airborne engineer aviation battalion" -- Seems an awful lot of adjectives, even for the military. Is there really such an animal? Can either "airborne" or "aviation" be dropped without hurting the meaning?
      • Yes, there was. The engineer aviation battalions were specially trained and equipped for building airbases, much like the RAAF's airbase construction squadrons. Of course other engineer units like construction battalions and general service regiments also built airbases, but these guys were the specialists. The airborne engineer aviation battalion was a special variant that was air portable for supporting airborne operations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prelude -- Not a nitpick this time, just wanted to say that I found the description of the independent company's characteristics succinct and useful -- that sort of context always helps.
  • Battle -- "new 208 radios" doesn't mean a lot, and passers-by might even think you meant 208 new radios, so I think I'd drop "208"; either that or make it clear that's it's a model, and better still briefly mantion what made them different from standard or older radios...
    • Small wireless set. AWA made them. [2] I'll see if I can dig up something on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Red linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath -- Not trying to downplay the victory it but I wonder whether something like "significant" works better; failing that, perhaps "spectacular" (or the source's equivalent) could be quoted/attributed.

Anyway, well done -- I'd never heard of this action till now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Herring, commander of I Corps, Major General George Alan Vasey, commander of the 7th Division, and Major General Ennis Whitehead, commander of the Advanced Echelon, Fifth Air Force, and Allied air commander in New Guinea, met at Whitehead's headquarters.": It's possible reviewers will object and ask for parentheses around "commander of I Corps", etc., in order to keep one comma per element in the series. I don't think it's confusing ... until you get to the last bit. Would it work to write "Advanced Echelon of Fifth Air Force and"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted "and Allied air commander in New Guinea," Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aptly named Finisterre Range": why aptly named?
    • You think it is not? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which meaning of "Finisterre"? Finisterre–Huon languages? - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It says and links the Finisterre Range Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not following. Since neither this article nor that article explains where the name comes from, how can the reader know if it's apt? - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • From the Wikipedia: "The name Finistère derives from the Latin Finis Terræ, meaning end of the earth," Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, of course. Still ... I've met some of our readers, and that's asking a bit much ;) - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It opened the gate ...": Since there are no commas in that sentence, it would use commas rather than semicolons in AmEng; I don't know about AusEng, but I expect commas are more common.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Comments Nice read! Needs some work on fit and finish. Some issues with prose, linking, and MoS are outlined below.[reply]

  • "capture of Lae" in the lead hyperlinks to "Landing and Lae" which makes no mention of any capture. Low-value link. Why hyperlink Lae later in the lead but not Nadzab?
    • The Landing at Lae article is on my work list. It's a stub at the moment, but will be expanded to a featured article. Nadzab was not linked because the article did not exist when this article was written. added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in ... in a special flight" sounds redundant.
  • Unclear language: First para of "Military situation", second and third sentences. Avoid beginning sentences with nebulous "this" and "it". Unclear what these are referring to. This problem occurs in several places throughout the article. Another example in Aftermath: "This was still a difficult approach, as aircraft had to land upwind while avoiding Mission Hill."
  • Linking strategy overall needs revisiting. I see at least three different links to "Ramu", all done in different ways.
  • What is the reason for having the Geography section where it is? It seems to interrupt the narrative you begin in "Military situation". You are reading a story, and then you are reading about geography, and then you are reading a story again.
    • Still wondering about this. I'm not necessarily asking for it to be changed—but I am wondering if there is a consensus order for military battle articles and if there is a rationale behind this order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The geography section was something that I invented. I isn't required, although some other editors have adopted it. The alternative would be to merge it with the situation section, if you think that would read better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wouldn't an alternative to be to place it before the Situation section and then start the narrative after you describe the geography? I just think it interrupts the flow of the article. If you disagree, I'm willing to hash it out. --Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I have moved the geography section to the top. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prelude": What is a "warning order"? Explain or link jargon.
    • Just passing by... Yes, the old WARNORD -- sort of a heads-up in militarise. How would "advance order(s)" sound? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually love the term, but I'm concerned readers won't get it. Advance orders sounds good as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Prefer warning order. Don't think it would confuse anyone because it is in accord with the non-militarese use of the word. Added a bit though to make it clearer what the warning order said. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To make the company self-supporting, it had its own engineer, signals, transport, and quartermaster sections." Needs rewriting.
    • Could you be more explicit? Reads okay to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe "To be self-supporting, the company had its own engineer ..." or even "The company was self-supporting, with its own engineer ..." What do you think? --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 17 September 1943, it finally took off for Leron in a special flight of 13 Dakotas of the US 374th Troop Carrier Group." Clunky. Why not "On 17 September 1943, a special flight of 13 Dakotas from the US 374th Troop Carrier Group finally took off for Leron."
  • MoS work needed: I fixed one instance of a period being outside a complete-sentence quotation—there are others.
--Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Disclaimer) Interesting read, looks good to me. Please see the media review below though, as some things need tweaking. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review A few minor things. First File:Markham Valley.jpg really should have a description of exactly what is going on somewhere, if not in the article, on the file description page. Second, I was going to ask you to put File:Bulldozer arrives on plane at Kaiapit strip 1943.jpg in a Template:Information template, but I decided to do that one myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following what you are asking for. What sort of description is required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red lines are who? Black lines are who? Who won what and when? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have expanded the caption and the alt text to add this. I guess I am too used to military maps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check clear 6/10 sources 20/40 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Willoughby (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of mistaken Japanese impressions in Willoughby at 224? Please advise.
    • Ooops. Wrong quote. I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenney (1/40 citations): I'm unable to find the concept of good flying weather on the 22 September 1943 in this source, is this obvious? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know what happened here! I replaced a reference with Kenney and did not notice it didn't cover the weather too. No worries; Dexter does, so added another reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: (I'm going to have to read Dexter I think before I'll sign off) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mellor (1/40 citations): excellent.
  • Kuzuhara (1/40 citations): has no page 123!!! It is 12 pages long!
    • Not so; it is p. 123 on the hard copy version. I had not realised that the online chapters did not have the same page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horner (1/40 citations) can't review, snippet view not working. Its a general SITREP style sequence of sentences that broadly set the ground, this is unlikely to be a) incorrect, b) poorly cited.
  • Craven & Cate (1/40 citations): First of all, this is miscited. But otherwise it is clear. You actually mean to cite: Richard L. Watson "Huon Gulf and Peninsula" in Craven & Cate
    • Yes. Changed to Watson. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • As each chapter of each volume of the USAAF official histories was written by a different combination of authors for simplicity most historians reference these books as 'Craven and Cate (editors)' or similar, so the original citation was also OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradley passes 3 randomised snippet searches for no plagiarism and correctly supporting statements
    • Thanks for the review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dexter issues (12/40 citations) fn1 clear; fn3 clear; fn12 clear; fn17 clear; fn23 clear; fn25 clear; fn27 clear; fn29 clear; fn35 correct; fn38 correct Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn18c should be at p419;
    • fn22 What bunching? What Owen guns? The source actually says, "With bayonettes and grenades" re a MG post. In fact grenades seem to be the key part of the action after 7am.
  • Please consider the above depth of spot checking and get back to me about if you need to go over the sources I couldn't check Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have rewritten the description of the battle. All issues should be resolved now. It would have been nice to have used Dexter's map of the action, but it doesn't become public domain until 1 January 2012. :( Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a shame, still, it is more fun than the annual "cabinet minutes" blah blah blah from the "archives" "journalists" on new years day. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very, very nice article. I got here very late and it seems that the other editors have already addressed all concerning issues. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Support As a disclaimer, I started this article in 2008 but haven't had all that much to do with it since. I think that this article is now of FA class, though I do have the following comments and suggestions:
    • You are still the second largest contributor though, with a whopping ten edits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying that independent companies were "Somewhat larger than a conventional infantry company" is an understatement - they were about twice the size
    • "As it came in to land, King spotted Papuan patrols in the area" - it's a bit unclear if you're referring to the PIB or local Papuans here. I'd suggest tweaking it to "As it came in to land, King spotted patrols from the Papuan Infantry Battalion in the area" to avoid any confusion.
    • "As the company advanced it came under light-machine-gun fire from foxholes on the edge of the village. A 2-inch mortar knocked out the machine gun." - the first sentence implies that there were more than one machine gun (through use of "foxholes") while the second sentence states that there was only a single machine gun - this should be clarified.
    • The account of the main clash between the Australian and Japanese forces seems a bit brief, though it is a good summary of the action. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it very difficult to write about small unit actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although some equipment was able to make the trek overland, ... Can equipment be "able to trek", or is that someting an individual does? WP:NBSP review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "Although some equipment was carried on the trek overland,". FWIW, I just reminded people today in my weekly FAC update at WT:MHC that invisible codes in the edit screen are something I don't check for per my standard disclaimer, and gave them Ohconfucius's script that checks those. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably, since a trek is "a long arduous journey, especially one made on foot" but I much prefer your version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Kaiapit/archive1&oldid=1088824233"