Talk:New Britain campaign/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Initial comments

 * Repetitive prose here: "''The interior of New Britain is mountainous, with a range of volcanic mountains..." (mountains and mountainous)
 * Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "''The facilities located near the town were attacked by Allied air units from early 1942..." perhaps wikilink Bombing of Rabaul (1942) here?
 * Done. We need an article on the air campaign against Rabaul (something for my to do list!) Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "In contrast, United States, Australian and New Guinean forces, assisted by local civilians, were always a division-level command or smaller..." The reasons for this disparity are of course covered later in the article but I wonder if a very short (i.e. half a sentence) summary should be provided here in regards to the relative strategic priority placed on campaigns elsewhere in the Pacific at this time?
 * That's a good point. I think that the issue was more that the Allies deliberately fought a limited campaign on the island, and didn't attempt to take on the main body of the Japanese garrison. If AR doesn't beat me to it, I'll look for a reference over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've added something on this now. Thanks for pointing this out. Please let me know if you think it is sufficient. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Terminology here: "US 1st Marine Division was the main unit..." formation would probably be more appropriate for a division rather than unit.
 * Done, and that reads better as well IMO Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cheers, not sure how I missed that one as it comes up at work all the time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Repetitive prose here: "was chosen for the attack.[36] For the landing, two beaches were chosen..." ("chosen")
 * Tweaked 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Repetitive prose here: "...This led to some heavy fighting, with the Japanese 141st Infantry Regiment attempting to defend some..." ("some")
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Meanwhile, early the next month, the remaining elements of the Australian 6th Infantry Brigade landed at Jacquinot Bay..." try to separate the wikilinks "6th Infantry Brigade" and "landed at Jacquinot Bay" if possible.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * typo here: "including a roads..."
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Two squadrons of Royal New Zealand Air Force..." what type of aircraft did they operate? Fighter bombers?
 * That's right: Vought F4U Corsairs. I've added this. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Repetitive prose: "...advance began with the intention of advancing..."
 * Tweaked to avoid this Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "which a patrol from the New Guinea Infantry Battalion" perhaps include the battalion's full title as there were other NGIBs?
 * Good point: I've clarified it was the 1st. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to come back to this in more detail tomorrow. Anotherclown (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these initial comments, and taking the time to review the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those Just changes look good to me, thanks Nick and AR. Also I've added a bit today and made a few other edits . Pls review and make any adjustments you think might be necessary. Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding this, and the reference to Dennis. I only have the earlier edition, and there seem to be significant page number differences, so your page numbers were very helpful. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Technical review

 * Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action req'd)
 * Disambiguations: no dabs - (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: No dead links - (no action req'd).
 * Alt text: A couple of images lack alt text so you might consider adding it - (suggestion only, not a GA req)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing  (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed.
 * Added alt text now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "During October the commander of the Eighth Area Army, General Hitoshi Imamura..." Imamura has already been formally introduced earlier so full use of rank and name probably not required here per MOS:SURNAME.
 * One of the isbns isn't hyphenated where as the rest is so this is currently inconsistent (sorry I added this, I'll fix myself unless someone beats me too it).
 * Can an issn or oclc be added for the "Journal of the Australian War Memorial" reference?
 * Addressed the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The prose looks fairly good to me, but I'll read over it again once any changes / additions are made.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the sources available.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major aspects of the topic seem to be covered that I could see.
 * There was a little more in Dennis et al 2008, p. 390 which discusses the limited air and naval strength of the Japanese garrison by the time the Australian's arrived in 1944. It might be relevant so I'll extract it here for you guys to decided: " Although they were numerically very strong, their once powerful air and naval forces had been reduced to two serviceable aircraft and no ships, although they still had perhaps as many as 150 barges capable of carrying 10-15 tons or 90 men."
 * My understanding is that the Japanese were mainly cut-off from reinforcement and supply by this stage also; however, from reading the article I'm not sure that this is really mentioned. Should it be?
 * Added something on this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Australian relief of the Americans on New Britain should probably be considered in the context of similar rotations undertaken on Bougainville and Aitape-Wewak in order to release US forces for the Philippines. This is covered in Dennis et al 2008, p. 387, which also makes the point that this was in keeping with the Australian government's aim to use Australian troops to regain Australian territory. Anotherclown (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added something on this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2017 (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 POV issues.
 * All significant views are covered.


 * 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. Although full bibliographic details and templates could probably be added for the following:
 * File:Japanese Ground Dispositions.jpg
 * File:Operation Cartwheel - Map02.jpg
 * Addressed the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Arawe landing craft Dec 43.jpg - probably needs a PD US tag
 * File:Amph tank 2 (AWM 096634).jpg - likewise may need a PD US tag
 * Addressed the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Captions look ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks good to me following the recent changes you have made in response to my initial comments. I've just got a few outstanding points above to address and / or discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All my points have been addressed. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks also from me Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)