Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Admiralty Islands campaign


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009.

Admiralty Islands campaign

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it is a truly high-quality article. Currently A-class. It has been peer reviewed and passed a Milhist A-class review. Comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from 
 * Dabs need to be fixed, as seen with the dabs checker tool in the toolbox.
 * Fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabs are found up to speed.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)--  ₮ RU  C Ө   23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref formatting is found up to speed, as seen with WP:REFTOOLS.
 * External links are found up to speed, using the external links checker tool in the toolbox.-- ₮RU  CӨ   22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added the missing access dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't even notice those.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   23:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the background section could do a better job of putting the campaign into a larger perspective. Specifically, it could use a paragraph or two at the very beginning describing the overall status of the war - that the Americans divided the pacific into regions - one of which was under the authority of MacArthur and the other under Nimitz; that the Admiralty islands campaign started just as Nimitz et al had beat the Japanese in the Solomon Islands campaign, etc. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added another introductory paragraph with words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Why are the footnotes like that? You don't list the title in every footnote, just the author name and page number. Good lord!
 * I wrote the article using the footnote form that military historians are required to use for publishable articles. We don't use author name and page number (date would also be required) because we don't normally cite books and that style is impractical for citing documents. This is one of the things that distinguishes history from a humanity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. At least it's consistent. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * MoS issues: Please go through and make sure there are non-breaking spaces between things like "1st Cavalry" and "No. 73".
 * Can you point me to the MOS requirement for this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mos. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. We're looking for one that mandates it for military units. I'm very reluctant given how aversely it will affect the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno about "1st", but "No." at the end of a line would be a real problem, since the dot could be a sentence period. Bump-bump for the reader. Tony   (talk)  14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to conform to the style used by the FA Guadalcanal campaign. Unit names do not have &amp;nbsps; in them, but adjectival numbers do. Your point about "No." makes sense though, so I have inserted them in those cases as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Spotted some overlinking, such as Landing Ships, Tank and then later LST. Wikilink first mention and not after. Please check throughout.
 * Checked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "On being pressed, it stubbornly increased the estimate to 4,000." This lacks clarity. Who was pressing?
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Apparently not expecting the Allies to move on the Admiralties so quickly, Imamura was given until the middle of 1944 to complete the defensive preparations for his command." Again, lacking clarity. As written, it seems as if "someone" didn't expect the Allies to move quickly, and thus gave Imamura more time. Was it Imamura or someone else? In either case, specify who didn't expect, and who gave Imamura the deadline.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More later. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This is a great article which meets the FA criteria. The 'Japanese perspective' section is interesting, but doesn't fit in with the rest of the article though. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—You know how much I love MilHist articles. This one is a great story, but the ideas are jumbled and there are technical faults. I've read only the lead, which indicates clearly that the whole article needs the attention of a new copy-editor. Who is the MilHist word-nerd around here?
 * "Belligerents" in the infobox. Is that what WikiProject MilHist mandates? I don't like its over-pejorative tinge. Some of them were good guys, yes?
 * I'm not allowed to tell you who the good guys were ;) But yes, this is what WikiProject MilHist mandates. You can take it up at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict if you like. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Acting on reports from airmen that there were no signs of enemy activity and the islands had possibly been evacuated, United States Army General Douglas MacArthur accelerated his timetable and ordered a reconnaissance in force of the islands. The campaign began on 29 February 1944 when a small force was landed on a beach on Los Negros Island. By landing on a small beach where the Japanese did not anticipate a landing attempt being made, the force achieved tactical surprise, but the islands proved to be far from unoccupied. A furious battle developed for control of the Admiralty Islands that was fought out on the islands, in the surrounding waters, and in the air above." Here's one possible solution, but I've put what you need to fix in square brackets, just as hunches: "Acting on reports from airmen that there were no signs of enemy activity and the islands may have been evacuated, United States Army General Douglas MacArthur accelerated his timetable [for ?advancing on the Japanese army in the Pacific?] and ordered a reconnaissance in force of the Islands. The campaign began on 29 February 1944 when a small force landed on a small, unlikely beach on Los Negros Island, [one of the ?three main islands in the group]. Despite this tactical surprise, it soon became evident that the islands had not been evacuated at all, and a furious land, sea and air battle ensued for their control."
 * "assaulted Japanese bases in the Admiralty Islands"—I guess I'll find out by reading through the article, but is it hard to give the number of bases? (Maybe it is: just checking.)
 * I've re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch those close reps: "landed ... landing ... landing", within two seconds of reading. I'd substitute the first one.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "may have been evacuated" would be neater.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove "being made".
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "air above"—not below? Think opposite to test for redundancy.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Let's look at the whole of the second para: the distribution of ideas among the sentences is not good. And you have to refer back to "evacuated" for it to be cohesive.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Reconnaissance in force" is expert-talk, and our readers shouldn't have to divert to the link to find out what it means ... well, unless it's seriously clunky to give us non-experts an easier wording (I guess we can work it out, sort of).
 * It is expert-talk, but there is a link, and it happens to be critically important to understanding the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Islands that became"—maybe "Islands, which became". There were other launching points, were there? Otherwise, make it "the launching point", yes? And perhaps "for the Pacific campaigns of 1944"?
 * Yes, there were other bases, some large, some small. The most important established up to this point (March 1944) in SWPA were Milne Bay, Finschhafen, and Oro Bay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno anything about it, so I'm throwing out fishing lines here. Tony  (talk)  14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you watch the video? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I think the article now covers all the bases and meets the criteria.  Good job. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Image Comments:
 * File:Admiralty_Islands.jpg, File:MacArthur and Henshaw.jpg, File:Admiralties-day01.JPG, File:Admiralties-day03.JPG, File:Admiralties-day08.JPG, File:Krueger Chase and Swift.jpg, and File:Admiralties-map11.JPG all appear to be properly licensed, but the image pages are a mess so it's hard to tell. We need authors at the very least, and preferably all the info in Information filled out. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No authors available, being US Army works, but I have implemented the template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, thank you. -- Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment One of the references, (Chase (1975). Frontline General: The Commands of Maj. Gen. Wm. C. Chase) seems to have a dodgy ISBN. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does! In the book itself, p. iv! I reckon the last digit should have been a 2. The isbn13 is 9780884152958 but this was not listed in the book. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's interesting. If you click through the ISBN in the book, ISBN 0884152950, you get to the right book at the Library of Congress Online Catalog and 'not found' at Amazon.com. If you click through ISBN 0884152952 (which has the correct checkdigit), it's the other way round - not at the library, but found at Amazon.  ISBN 9780884152958 looks good for both, so can I suggest we go with the ISBN-13?  Apologies for making a simple thing difficult.  Mr Stephen (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.