Talk:Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 13:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments/suggestions:
 * there are a couple of disambig links that should be fixed if possible:
 * ✅ corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the images lack alt text. It is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in;
 * ✅ done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bataan gang," --> is there a reason for the comma inside the quotation marks?
 * ✅ moved comma. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "became a field marshal". I suggest adding a wikilink to "field marshal". Additionally, I wonder if it should be clarified what this entailed, e.g. "...became a field marshal in the Philippine Army, in overall command and tasked by the government to building up its readiness" (or something similar depending upon what it actually entailed);
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * commas: "MacArthur's wife Jean MacArthur and his son Arthur MacArthur IV went with him to Corregidor" (consider adding commas around "Jean MacArthur" and "Arthur MacArthur IV");
 * ✅ done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "newly-arrived" --> "newly arrived" per WP:HYPHEN;
 * ✅ done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "newly-formed" --> "newly formed" per above;
 * ✅ done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * in the Background section, "PT-33 ran aground in December and was set on fire to prevent her being salvaged by the Japanese. PT-31 met a similar fate a month later." What had they done before this? Later in the article you say they "performed hard war service", perhaps you could add a short sentence here about that? For instance, "Throughout early December the PT boats engaged it a sharp campaign against the Japanese invasion forces, but as the situation worsened, when PT-33 ran aground later in the month, she was set on fire to prevent her being salvaged by the Japanese. PT-31 met a similar fate a month later."
 * ✅ Did not want to get too much into recounting the exploits of the PT Boats, but have expanded this a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * in the Decision section, I wonder if a little more could be said about why the it was felt necessary to get MacArthur out. Perhaps if something could be added to the first sentence of that section to clarify?
 * additionally, in the same section, it seems that the decision was wholely directed from Washington, do the sources say whether or not MacArthur had cosidered this course of action himself before being directed to go? Or had he resolved to stay with the troops?
 * ✅ Yes. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ostensibly, the purpose of MacArthur's visit was presenting Bulkeley with the Distinguished Service Cross..." Perhaps clarify what the medal was for? For instance, "Ostensibly, the purpose of MacArthur's visit was presenting Bulkeley with the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions earlier in the campaign, but..."
 * ✅ Yes. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * comma: "A United States Army Air Corps officer, Major General Harold H. George was requested" (I think one is needed after "George");
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "There was some criticism of MacArthur taking an Asian woman instead of an American nurse". Criticism from who?
 * Not sure. MacArthur and Willoughby say there was, but do not mention who. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, no dramas. I think that it should be okay in that case, but you might consider rewording it slightly. For instance, maybe this: "MacArthur later deflected criticism about his decision to take an Asian woman instead of an American nurse by stating that "[f]ew people outside..." AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Good idea. It was typical of MacArthur, who tended to ignore the racial mores of the day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "This too was questioned, but MacArthur had a loyal..." Questioned by who?
 * ✅ Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bulkeley had spent time looking for the other three boats. Unable to find them in the darkness, he gave up at dawn and headed for one of the alternate hiding places." This seemed a little awkward, perhaps reword: "Bulkeley spent some time looking for the other three boats, but unable to find them in the darkness, he gave up at dawn and headed for one of the alternate hiding places."
 * "He jettisoned his drums of fuel" --> "He jettisoned his fuel drums";
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "or wait for the USS Permit" --> "or wait for USS Permit";
 * ✅ Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Unaware of this, Bulkeley attempted to locate PT-32, flying over the area in the hope of finding it". Flying over the area? Sorry if I've missed something, but I wonder if this should be clarified. What did he fly over the area in? He was a PT boat commander, wasn't he, not an aircraft pilot?
 * If I told you I was flying to London, would you picture me in a blue suit with a red cape?
 * Ha, yes fair call. What I was trying to say was that currently it seems a little unclear with the current wording. As he was a PT boat commander, it is doubtful that he got in a plane and flew himself, so the reader (well I did at least) is left to ponder about this. What seems more likely to me is that he requested a search aircraft be sent out, and that he joined the search by accompanying the flight as a passenger. I could be reading too much into it, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Okay, I dug up some information about that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * this seems inconsistent: "navy B-17s" and "how the Navy would benefit" (navy and Navy);
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "but there was no aircraft at Del Monte Field" --> "but there were no aircraft at Del Monte Field";
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * comma: "Brett's chief of staff, Brigadier General Ralph Royce was on hand" (possibly required after "Royce");
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "He had Arthur on an intravenous feed" Why was this? I assume the boy was ill/sick, but unless I missed it, I don't think it has been mentioned earlier;
 * ✅ Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "but the torpedo was a dud and no damage resulted" (this seems a little informal). Perhaps reword to: "but the torpedo failed to explode and no damage resulted"?
 * ✅ Done. I'd always considered "dud" the correct technical term. Linked to the "dud" article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good solution. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * has anything been written about public reactions to MacArthur's escape? For instance, at the time was it seen in a positive light, or a negative light in Australia and the US?
 * Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a great addition. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * in the References, I wonder if ISSN details or OCLC details could be added for the Brett source? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ added OCLC. Also linked the magazine which now has its own. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These changes really good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Technical review
 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * no dabs found by the tools.
 * Google searches didn't reveal any copyright issues.
 * Alt text present.
 * Ext links all work.


 * Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * All issues resolved above.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Excellent level of referencing to reliable sources.
 * Consistent referencing style.
 * No OR detected.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All issues resolved above.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * There has been a bit of recent activity, but nothing that I would consider an "edit war".


 * 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:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Another excellent article, Hawkeye. As always, it was a pleasure to review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)