Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Guadalcanal Campaign

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II Pacific War campaign for A-class review. The article is long and has been under construction for about two years now, because I wanted to take all of the campaign's sub-articles to Featured status first. For the curious, this [1] is what the article looked like two years ago. Cla68 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. References are in a common format and amply provided. Subject is fairly presented. Article hierarchy makes for good comprehension and flow, and its English style has great clarity. Images are high-value and support the text appropriately. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another good article which covers the topic well and meets all the criteria. I have a few comments:
  • This may just be my reading of the article, but I think that the land aspect of the campaign might deserve greater coverage - especially the non-combat aspects (eg, the base development undertaken by US and Japanese forces)
  • As this article summarises the exellent articles on the individual battles, it would probably be appropriate to include a breakdown of casualties by nationality and service
  • I would question the value of the paragraph which begins "According to U.S. historian Gerhard L. Weinberg" - everything I've read argues that the Japanese were planning to expand into the South Pacific in the second half of 1942 had they been able to develop a base at Guadacanal, and not the Indian Ocean, and it seems unlikely that the Japanese could cut British lines of communication off East Africa or enter India in enough strength to cause the collapse of the Raj. If you're going to cover a disagreement over Japanese intentions you need to present all sides of the argument rather than one (eminent) historian's view. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Very good suggestions, thank you, and I'm going to address all of them before submitting for FA. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just a further note, I replaced the Weinberg paragraph and added information to the infobox footnote on Allied casualties by country [2]. As far as I can determine, the only Australian deaths were in the Battle of Savo Island and I can't find any numbers for New Zealand, Solomon Island, or other nationalities. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support This a-class review is long overdue. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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.