Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bougainville counterattack/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018 [1].

Bougainville counterattack

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers what must be one of the worst military blunders of World War II. In March 1944 around 15,000 Japanese troops attempted to attack fortified positions on the island of Bougainville which were held by 62,000 Americans who knew that they were coming. While the Japanese fought bravely, the offensive ended in total failure, with the veteran US Army units stopping the attack in a matter of days.

A draft of this article languished in my user space for four years until 2016 when AustralianRupert prompted me to resume work on it, and went on to write at least half of the article (and possibly much more) himself. The article draws on a wide range of American, Japanese, Australian and New Zealand sources to provide a comprehensive account of this little-remembered, but important, battle. It was assessed as a GA in September 2016, and passed an A-class review in January this year. We have since expanded and copy edited the article, and are hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have looked at the copyedits and changes since 1 January when I last looked at it. I have just one nitpick, relating to the use of the term "pillbox". I believe this is a misnomer, and the structures being referred to were bunkers made of logs. Pillboxes are generally concrete structures. It is not a war-stopper, but I thought I should mention it. I consider this meets the FA criteria, I haven't looked at the image licensing. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, PM, thanks for taking a look. I agree that "bunker" is how I would describe them, but the cited source (Miller) does use the term "pillbox": [2]. Gailey does also: [3]. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them as concrete positions, so it doesn't seem to be a US-English thing. It might be dated American language in the sources? If this is the case, changing to 'bunker' or similar seems sensible. Thanks also from me for the review Peacemaker. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: G'day, Dan, do you have an opinion on this? Happy to change "pillbox" to "bunker" if you feel that would be an improvement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collins, M-W and Amerian Heritage all say that pillboxes are concrete structures. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank, I've just replaced 'pillbox' with 'bunker' per the above. This must be dated language in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Bougainville_Operation_map.jpg: are any details given about provenance in the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Nikki, the map was sourced from Reports of General MacArthur: Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area, Volume II, Part I. The preface to the cited work states that the work "...is the Japanese official record, contained in operational monographs furnished by the Japanese Demobilization Bureaux, the successors to the former War and Navy Ministries, developed by Officers of the Japanese Imperial Headquarters, Tokyo, and on the Staffs of major Japanese Commanders in the field". The foreword, also provides: "The preliminary work for compiling the MacArthur volumes began in 1943 within the G-3 Section of his General Staff..." as well as "Since they were Government property, the general turned over to the Department in 1953 these volumes and related source materials" and "Volume II of the Reports represents the contributions of Japanese officers employed to tell their story of operations against MacArthur's forces." Not sure whether that impacts the license, though. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's a Japanese work originally, I'd expect a Japanese tag would be more appropriate - while the immediate publication was commissioned by the US Army, the original work wouldn't have been. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would Template:PD-Japan-organization (with the organisation being the Japanese Demobilization Bureau) be appropriate? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Done: [4]. Thanks, Nikki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Dan. Appreciate you taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any time. Sorry I've gotten behind on my wiki-work lately. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo

Support on hqrs (heavily used texts quality), research completeness & weight (sources depth and diversity, "white myths," class/gender/ethnicity, military science disciplinary debate, historiographical debate), standard citation format ~~One 1c issue about Miller's extensive use~~, four queries Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht check? I'm picturing the potential issues in this location being: slave labour, failure to accept surrender, trophy taking, etc.
- Haven't found anything in the context of this particular battle. Nelson mentions something related to failure to accept surrender in the context of some of the Australian operations later in the war, but nothing that I could see specifically about this battle. This also mentions something about trophy taking and refusal to accept surrender on Bougainville, but nothing specifically relating to this battle. I will have to wait to see if Nick can add anything when he gets back from his trip. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't seen anything which touches on these issues concerning this particular battle. None of the sources discusses the Japanese using conscripted Bogainvillians or other slaves as porters in this battle. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - cheers, they were the potentials to ask after here Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anything weighty on: Women? Koreans? Bogainvillians?
- Added a little more on Bougainvilleans, but couldn't find anything in my searches for the other topics. Within the context of this battle, as opposed to the wider campaign (which Nelson covers to an extent), I'd say there wouldn't be much in this regard, but I will have to wait until Nick gets back to see if he has anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted in the article, few Bogainvillians lived in the area where this battle occurred - which was remote and had a difficult climate, even by Bogainville's standards. I also haven't seen anything on women being present on the Allied or Japanese side: most likely they were not as this was a frontline area, and female medical personnel were usually stationed at the main bases. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - thank you! Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The military science debate in aftermath is great. Is there a historiographical debate? If so is it WEIGHTy to include?
- Expanded the aftermath a little, but that is probably all I can bring to the party. Historiography isn't my strong suit, I'm afraid. Nick may be able to add something. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - There isn't a debate in the sources on this issue. The sources are all in agreement on the details of the battle, the doomed nature of the attack, and its consequences. There's a lively debate over the Australian campaign in Bougainville in 1944-45 (e.g., whether it was worthwhile), but the 1943-1944 campaign between American and Japanese forces is uncontroversial: there's agreement among historians that it was a very worthwhile and well conducted campaign for the Americans and an utter fiasco for the Japanese. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - good work Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ross, J.M.S missing full stop
- Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good inclusion of available Japanese sources: you've checked for ones that you can't reach without heavier WP assistance such as japanese first language editors?
- Added a bit more from Shindo and Tanaka, but that's all I have found that I can access at this stage. My high school Japanese doesn't allow me to read anything but a few letters (not even words) these days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm very confident that we've used all the English-language works which cover the Japanese side of this story. The US Army and US Marine Corps official histories do an excellent job of explaining the Japanese side of the battle, based on Japanese documents and interviews with Japanese veterans. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - cheers! Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miller, John, Jr. (1959). is relied upon so heavily because? Clear my concerns? Seminal? The major close narrative?
- It is the best account of this phase of the campaign, in my opinion. It is also the most accessible. Most of the recent work I've read on the Bougainville campaign doesn't cover this battle in much detail. Usually a paragraph or two. I will see if I can glean anything more from Gailey tomorrow, though, but I don't think he adds much if anything that Miller doesn't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Miller's chapter remains the main account of this battle. The US Army official history series (the "Green Books") continues to be very highly regarded by modern historians, so can be assumed to have stood the test of time. We've also used more recent works on the Bougainville campaign, of which Karl James' book on the Australian involvement is the only major scholarly-style work to appear in decades. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the responses! Fifelfoo (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - G'day, Fifelfoo. Thanks for taking a look and welcome back! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks also from me Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        thanks. I agree with the standard of the US military's commitment to military history, particularly as works stand the test of time. It is good to be back and the reviewing community is very rewarding work Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks good to me. You remind me that I still have an article that has been sitting in my userspace since 2010. My only quibble is the footnotes in the Infobox. Normally, these are unnecessary, as the details are in the body of the article. But the US casualties are not in the body of the article. I think they should be. As an aside, there are some details on Allied casualties on Bougainville [5]. Table 62 lists 2,335 Allied casualties in Bougainville campaign between 15 February and 21 April 1944. (Morison incorrectly says that the 263 were killed, wounded and missing.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the statement supporting fn 37 on Morison, p. 430. (On p. 427 he says that the Japanese Navy landed about 1,400 reinforcements.) Looking through Japanese Monograph No. 44, the Japanese estimated American dead at 700; Japanese casualties are given as 3,000 killed and 4,000 wounded, along with a breakdown. The orders are clearly calling for the US beachhead to be annihilated. Afterwards, Eighth Area Army issues new orders calling for defensive operations to wear down the enemy until it is exhausted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you're referring to the second citation to page 430 of Morison? It was out of place, as the entire para should be cited to Miller: I've just fixed this. I've added the number of men moved to the coverage of the role of Japanese barges. I know that this is unusual for a FAC, but could you add material from that Japanese Monograph? I don't think it was one of the ones I had access to before the ANU's collection was destroyed. I've also added the casualty figures to the body of the article. Thanks a lot for the review and these comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 9 July 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.