Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Slater's Knoll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Slater's Knoll edit

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe that it meets the A class criteria. This is only my second ACR, so any help that you can provide will be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support
- All images have alt text, there are no DAB links and it is well referenced, good work;
- One of the external links is broken though I'm afraid (one of the AWM references); Done
- I think you should consider rewording the first paragraph in the 'Back ground' section as it is a little unclear (to me at least) what the relationship was between the Allies' inaccurate estimate of Japanese strength and the subsequent decision to mount an aggressive campaign to clear them from Bougainville. Also this policy was considered fairly controversial in Australia at the time (and today), this could possible be mentioned (not in great detail though); Done
- You might consider tweaking the image placement further to offset them, left and then right, etc (I don't think this is a WP:MOS requirement though); Done
- This sentence in the 'Prelude' section could possibly be reworded: "A number of attacks occurred over the course of 15–17 March..."; Done
- Breaking up the 'Battle' section with some descriptive 3rd level headers might aid readability; Done
- Use of terminology such as 'wet gaps' should probably be avoided (I know it makes sense to a military engineer but it could probably be put in more common terms); Done
- I have made a few edits for punctuation, prose etc. Please review and change if you don't like.

Anyway that's its from me for now. Overall, this is an excellent article in my opinion and most of my points are more suggestions than anything.Anotherclown (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, so I'm adding my support now. (Wow you think like I do... the last change you did with the images was exactly what I was about to do but you beat me to it... haha) Anotherclown (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW SpoolWhippets maps deserve a special mention. They are excellent examples... what ever happened to him anyway? Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Cheers. Definately agree with your comment about the maps, they make the article look so much better. Hopefully, he's just on a break and will be back soon. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Newm30 (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a great article, and meets the A class criteria. My suggestions for further improvements are:
- Who "believed that the Japanese forces on the island numbered around 17,500 men"? - the Australians, I assume
- I think that the Australian II corps didn't just consist of the 3rd Division - from memory there were one or two independent brigades on Bougainville along with artillery and armoured units under the corps HQ. I wouldn't be surprised if the division on New Britain also reported to II Corps. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the review, Nick. I've made a couple of changes based on these suggestions. I was able to verify the info about the two brigades, but haven't found a citation for the arty and armoured units being attached at Corps level (although I'm think you are right - I seem to remember reading somewhere (probably Hopkins) about the 2/4th Armoured detaching troops and squadrons to a number of campaigns at this time, although perhaps they were attached at div level, not sure). — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found it, I think. I've added it in a note. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.