Talk:Landing at Jacquinot Bay/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 03:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
• Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: The images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - [5] (no action required)
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate link to be removed.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • The first sentence is a bit redundant "The Landing at Jacquinot Bay was an Allied amphibious landing at Jacquinot Bay..." It might require reworking the first couple of sentences to rectify.
  • "... with the Australian 5th Division, under Major General Alan Ramsay taking over from the..." Should there be a paired comma after Ramsay?
    • Both done Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "...Awul near Cape Dampier (approximately 100 miles (160 km) east of Arawe)..." I'm unclear from reading MOS:BRACKET if brackets inside brackets is acceptable. Happy for you to decide what is correct but pls check if you are unsure.
    • Changed to square brackets Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "A Militia formation, it had not previously seen..." Perhaps wikilink Militia here.
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "...under the escort of the destroyer HMAS Vendetta, frigate Barcoo and sloop Swan..." I wonder if the HMAS prefix should be used here for Barcoo and Swan? (suggestion only, I imagine this is just a question of style / editorial choice).
    • I've tweaked this a bit - what do you think? The new construction depends on people knowing that all RAN warships are HMAS something, which is fairly well known in Australia but perhaps not so elsewhere? Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • That looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Minor inconsistency with presentation of time format here "...before 6 am on 4 November..." vs "All elements of the battalion were ashore by 11:30 am..."
    • Hmm, I see your point, but 6:00 am seems redundant when 6 am is the same (but this might be my training to avoid unnecessary decimals talking!) Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "...Brigadier Sandover regarded the lack of opposition as fortunate..." Drop rank from Sandover here per WP:SURNAME
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There is some minor inconsistency with the presentation of isbns (some have hyphens, others do not).
    • Done Nick-D (talk)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major aspects seem to be covered. A couple of minor points / suggestions:
    • Bradley Hell's Battlefield p. 408 mentions that the airfield at Jacquinot Bay was finished in May 1945 and was subsequently used by two squadrons of RNZAF Corsairs. I wonder if this should be included "Base construction" section?
  • Added. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Charlton The Unnecessary Campaigns p. 95 outlines how limited shipping resulted in a delay in concentrating Australian forces on New Britain (which you briefly mention) and argues that as a result a more aggressive response from the Japanese may have allowed them to overrun the small Australian garrisons established in the interim. Yet apparently "The Japanese had little idea of what was happening. Their first information that the Australians had taken over form the Americans came from radio broadcasts from Australia". This last part seems interesting to me, as it suggests that the landing at Jacquinot Bay (and the other movements that occurred as part of 5th Division's take over) went undetected. Do you think this warrants inclusion / discussion? Are these points covered in any of the other works on the subject?
      • That's a good point - added. His broader point (and especially the claim that the garrison of Rabaul was "well-equipped and well fed") is rather dubious given that the Japanese didn't actually have the capacity to mount major offensive operations from Rabaul: due to the tropical conditions apparently most of the ammunition there was in bad conditions, and they lacked the sea transport or airpower needed for any such operations. He's right though that the Australians got lucky that the Japanese didn't seriously contest the operations near Rabaul - I can only imagine that the Japanese commanders recognised the war was lost, and didn't want to waste the lives of their men. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Ack - my point was probably a bit laboured. The part I saw as being relevant from Charlton was that the Japanese did not detect the changeover b/n the Americans and the Australians, which you have now covered so that looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • As the landing was uncontested I'm assuming there were little if any casualties, and this is the impression I get from reading the article. Is there anything in the sources which mentions if there were any casualties (or explicitly says there wasn't any)? Even from accidents etc (amphibious operations can be dangerous obviously). If so it might add value to state that.
      • I couldn't see anything listed in the war diary or Long, unless I missed it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • The 14th/32nd Battalion's war diary mentions a soldier drowning while swimming off duty a few days after the landing, but that's it. I didn't think this should be noted given that it wasn't at all combat related (though it obviously would have been a cause of deep sadness to his family and friends). Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images are appropriate for article and are PD and most seem to have the req'd documentation.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Looks good to me just a couple of mostly minor prose / MOS points and a couple of other suggestions. Anotherclown (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your detailed review. I think that all your comments are now addressed, though please let me know if that's not the case. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • No problem, those changes look good to me. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)