Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Cape Gloucester/archive1

Battle of Cape Gloucester

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take this article to GA soon and would like some feedback about anything that might be missing, or things that could be improved before I do. Thank you to all who stop by. Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• For the dispositions map, suggest including a legend in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nikki. Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments The article is certainly in good shape. I'd like to offer the following comments and suggestions:

• The material on the background to this battle could be more strongly focused on the air campaign against Rabaul, noting the scale and purpose of this effort.
  • Added a bit, but not sure if it really hits the mark: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• The differences in opinions on the necessity of this operation among the Allied high command (as noted in the 'Opposing plans' section of the New Britain Campaign article) could be noted
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'd suggest splitting the description of the US and Japanese orders of battle into separate paras (perhaps in a separate section)
  • Split into a subsection of the Background. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• It might also be a good idea to split the description of the opposing plans out of the operation section
  • Created a preparations section inside a separate Prelude. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• A map of the beachhead area would be useful
  • Added. Had to move a few images around, but I think it works now. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• While the description of the fighting is adequate for GA class, it could be further expanded to provide greater detail as the article is developed. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nick, I will look to work on these comments over the weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: G'day. Nick, if you have a moment would you mind taking a look at my changes and letting me know if it meets your intent? Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Those changes all look good to me, and the article should cruise through GA and A-class reviews. The para on the Japanese order of battle is a nice bit of work in its own right given how surprisingly complex this topic is (if you really want to go down a rabbit warren in expanding the article, the Japanese build up could be covered in more detail). I might have a go at adding a bit more on the aerial background, in part to soften myself up for a planned article on the air campaign against Rabaul. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Cheers, Nick, any additions would be most welcome. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing by Cinderella157

Hi, @AustralianRupert, I am sorry to disagree with Nick and IMHO, the article probably still needs a bit of work - though whether this is to meet GA or A Class is moot. Some initial observations are:

Initial Comments

• There is quite some scope to improve the prose per: readability, clarity and economy.
• At least one error (of sorts) became apparent after a cursory review of the sources
  • "The force came ashore aboard craft of various types including APDs" - they were transported by the APD and off-loaded into landing craft.
    • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• The choice of maps could be better. The selection of maps should (if possible) show all of the localities of significance. The first map is probably too small a scale and the second, too large a scale. The map of the landings lacks quality (resolution and readability). At the largest scale, Map 18 Miller (p 292) might be better. Map 23, p 320, Shaw & Kane shows the western end of the island. Map 22, p 302, Shaw & Kane might serve to replace the first two existing maps. Good maps are worth a thousand words. I am assuming these are PD as they are the product of the USMC?
  • Yes, they are PD. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Adjusted maps now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I would think that Map 22, p 302, Shaw & Kane might be better than the first map, as it shows more of the localities being discussed? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm kind of keen to keep the first map as the creator put a lot of work into it. Which localities would you like added? I will see if it can be adjusted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Long Island, Rooke Is, Goodenough Is, Gasmata and Talasea. The text "Madang", could swap sides. The font size for Lae, Wau and some others is bigger than say Madang. I am thinking ahead a bit here. If it were saved to commons with better resolution, sections could be cut and saved for individual pages. The north point and scale locations could be an issue. So thinking more generally, it might be good to add some more points (all at once) - say: Wide Bay, Open Bay, Admiralty Islands (Manus Is), Kirawina Is, Woodlark Is, Normanby Is, Fergusson Is and any other relevant points, such as Shortland Islands and the Treasurys. Some thoughts. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
            • No worries, added a request on the creator's talk page. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
              • The map has been updated now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
                • Hi, Two "errors" that leap out. Gasmata is missing an "a" and Telasea is too low - about half-way between where it is now and the constriction before the end of the cape and on the eastern coast as shown (see [2]). Cape Sudest is mentioned a few times ([3]). In the circumstances, It might be worth adding too. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • No worries, I have posted a comment on Chris' talk page to see if he can adjust it a bit more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Structure and sequencing (continuity) could be improved.

Would be happy to work with you on this. I would need to get my head around the available (on-line) material. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That would be great. Happy for any help I can get. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Structural comment

@AustralianRupert, I have reviewed the OHs to the extent of that covered in the Battle section. It raises a concern that should be resolved and/or reconciled and suggests a structural change and, perhaps, some expansion. The info box gives the battle as "26 December 1943 – 22 April 1944". I have looked at New Britain campaign and the Cape Gloucester section. This covers up to the Battle of Talasea. From the end of the Gloucester section:

In mid-January, Sakai requested permission to withdraw his command from western New Britain, and this was granted by Imamura on the 21st of the month. The Japanese forces subsequently sought to disengage from the Americans, and move towards the Talasea area.[46] Marine patrols pursued the Japanese, and a large number of small engagements were fought in the centre of the island and along its north coast.

This article does not cover the Green Beach landings by LT 21, their withdrawal and marry-up. Nor does it cover the advance toward Borgen Bay. LT 21 was an integral part of the operation. I think that there is scope to expand the battle section IAW this, at least to the point leading into the Battle of Talasea or a link up with forces from Arawe (which ever comes first)? For part of this, I note the dates given in the info box. I donot know why these have been chosen (ie a source) but mid-January (per the quote) appears more consistent with events? On the otherhand, Rooke Is. is not an intrinsic part of this op, yet it appears in the Battle section?

In a similar vein, the article starts with a full head of steam (detail) advancing to the beachheads but seems to loose its puff (IMHO)? Perhaps these other things might provide a ending to the action.

The Battle section concludes with a summary of casualties? Except as an intermediate summary, I would think this is more to the Aftermath? The Base Development commences within the time of the Battle section. Perhaps this might better be a main section, between the Battle and the aftermath. Similarly, the mopping up might better be a part of the battle. The Aftermath would then deal with casualties, subsequent development (on New Britain and in the SWPA), an analysis of the action and a broader analysis (noting that the latter but not the former is covered). I think that Hough offers something on the former, such as the value of the Green Beach landings. In short, I think that some details are in the wrong places within the structure.

I hope this is sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for the comments. Will work on them over the weekend. A couple of quick responses:

• Regarding the date in the infobox I believe it comes from this source: [4], which seems to use the date the Marines were relieved. A date of 16 January is supported by Shaw & Kane p. 389 as the end of organised defence: "The capture of Hill 660 and the repulse of the counterattack to retake it marked the effective end of the Japanese defense of the Cape Gloucester-Borgen Bay area". I could adjust to this, if you think that best.

• I think that the info box should reflect the scope of the article - so yes, I think it needs to be adjusted. 16 Jan sounds consistent with the article. Talasea falls within the dates of this article, so it becomes problematic - both that Talasea is a separate article and that it is not covered in the Battle section here. It is appropriate though, to reconcile the sources. This could be done with a note. But it could also be addressed in the Aftermath. Given the status of the article, I wouldn't exclude notes at this time (as opposed to Torakina - where the article was in a better state). I also observe that "annotation" notes do not have to be grouped separately from citations (shortened footnotes). This could be an option where there are only very few annotations. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Adjusted with clarification in text. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding your comment "Rooke Is. is not an intrinsic part of this op": do you mean Long Island? If so, yes I agree it could be moved. I wonder if this might be better up in the Preparations section, or in the Aftermath?

• Yes, my error. Suggest Aftermath. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Moved now. Added mention of Rooke Island landing in Feb 44 also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding casualties, these were moved into the Aftermath on 8 Feb: [5].

• I was referring to: "The position was finally secured on 16 January 1944 during which 50 Marines and over 200 Japanese were killed. The capture of this position represented the end of Japanese defensive operations in the Cape Gloucester and Borgen Bay areas." As it stands, this figure creates an apparent inconsistency with the Aftermath and might need to be reconciled. As I said above though, intermediate figures are not inappropriate in the Battle section. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• No worries, I've adjusted the wording now to hopefully make it clearer that those figures are intermediate and relate only to the fighting around Hill 660. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the Green Beach landing, it is covered in the paragraph beginning "The Japanese defenses around the western landing...". Agree, though, the this should be expanded. In the meantime, I've adjusted the paragraph slightly to make it clearer which landing related to which beach.

• Split into its own section now. Added details of a few of the clashes and the main engagement and subsequent collapse and link up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• The advance to Borgen Bay is covered in the paragraph beginning "In the weeks that followed, US troops pushed south towards Borgen Bay..." Agree, though, that it could be expanded.

• Split into its own section now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've split base development out into its own section with a level two heading as it probably doesn't quite belong in the Battle section, nor is it completely part of the Aftermath. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @AustralianRupert, per Green Beach and the advance toward Borgen Bay, I was painting with a very broad brush - but you have taken the point I was trying to make re expanding the detail wrt these. I agree with your treatment of the base development. I might have more clearly stated making it a level two heading (but I was being suggestive rater than prescriptive) - your course was my intent for the same reasons you cite. I will let you bash this about a bit before I come back. Give me a ping when you are moderately happy with knocking this up. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @AustralianRupert, There is probably some scope to discuss the evolution of the plan, particularly as it evolved from dividing the force into two attacking elements and an airborne landing. Reasons why this changed to the final plan and was delayed because of shipping availability. Also, there is the allocation of tasks, with the 5th Marines being a reserve? The logistics plan and how this played out. Movement of the force to the landing, including the deception plan. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, will look at this, too. The 5th Marines being in reserve is already mentioned twice currently, though, so probably won't mention that again. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I found the evolution of the plan very interesting in the OHs. I think this could be developed more as a section. Please see Battle of Arawe. As I read things, the initial plan was an attack on Gasmata and Cape Glocester by 1st Marine Div. Pardon me if I get the "details" wrong. I have not double-checked them. My point is the the broad picture, the initial plan and how this evolved. The initial plan was to divide 1 Marine between Gasmata and Cape G. At Cape G, it was to have two lodgements of similar size (east and west) and a para drop (given MacA had allocated paras). Japanese reinforcement to Gasmata killed this part and the alternative was to Arawe with the Cav. This freed the Div to work as a formation (save that 5 Marine Regt was in reserve). The initial plan was for the moon in Nov but this was delayed by the navy because of landings in NG. The initial plan for Cape G was for two lodgements and a para drop. The Marines weren't happy with dividing their force (principle is to concentrate force). The revision gave Green Beach a limited task. I think that all of these points are a credit to the Marines particularly, and the article should reflect this - even if it is a case of reading between the lines. The A, B and C combat teams were not so clearly defined on regimental lines as the plan evolved?

As to the logistics plan, I think this was particularly well formed but is not so represented in the article. There are the general planning factors per the scale of supply to be initially landed etc. There is also the planning as to how this was to be achieved - the loading on trucks v bulk cargo and the plan for dispersal to "sub dumps" rather than congesting traffic at major dumps. These are a degree of "subtly" in planning that I don't usually associate with the US. How events after the first shot is another issue. Clearly, there were hiccups, such as the Army drivers and the terrain. These might be a section witin the Battle?

The embarkation and move might be a separate section? The convoy initially moved to Finschaffen as a deception? The landing forces were separate, even if they convoyed together initially. The different allocations should be made clear.

The rocket firing DUWKs did not travel the whole way - they were disembarked. But the text reads as if they did? There were LCPs with rockets that took the flanks for the yellow beach landings (not mentioned?)

The Blue beach landings were significant (even though that didn't go off without a hitch. I did a search for "blue" with no return?

Hope this helps. I am sorry to be pointing rather than shooting. I should be asleep. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep working on it. Can you please provide a ref that says they moved to Finschhafen as a deception? I haven't been able to find this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This was my recollection, but I could be wrong. I will look and get back to you. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

With apologies, it appears I was wrong. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for getting back to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Think I've covered off on most of these points now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I will look at things when I get a chance (when it is too hot to be outside). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)