Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Axis naval activity in Australian waters

Axis naval activity in Australian waters
I believe that this article on the Axis naval operations in Australian waters during World War II meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article status. The article has been through a peer review and has been assessed as an A-Class article by the Military History WikiProject. The article's content and structure is stable and all images used in the article are free of copyright restrictions. This is a self-nomination. --Nick Dowling 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written, well referenced, and an informative article. Cla68 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Large number of sourced and is very well written and has good structure. Probably the best Australian military article. Hossen27 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A few minor points:
 * The dates in the headings would look neater in parentheses.
 * I would replace main and further with details.
 * Can we get rid of the "See also" section? Most of the links appear to already be present, and can be just trimmed; is there any way of working the others into the text? Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support now that these issues have been fixed. One further thing to look at: would it be possible to remove the article self-reference at the beginning of the "The Australia Station and Australian defences" section?  The first paragraph isn't too bad—although I would change "entry" to either "article" or "narrative"—but the second one is, I think, quite unnecessary. Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for that suggestion Kirill. I've updated the article to clarify why the many Japanese naval operations in Australia's colonial possessions in New Guinea have been excluded from the article. --Nick Dowling 04:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Hossen. Nick has done a great job. As I have said elsewhere, I think the separate year headings "1939-41", "1942, "1943", "1944" and "1945" are unnecessary, but that is a minor quibble. Grant65 | Talk 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Very good article that is well writen and sourced. Hello32020 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent work. Well written and well referenced. A minor thing: under 1943, you say: "The IJN also conducted a diversionary bombardment of a small West Australian town."  Which town? Broome? &mdash; Moondyne 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Per WP:LS, there should be a bold title in the lead section. The lead section does not also give some information of who the Axis is. I know that it has wikilink, but since the term is the first word of the title, it would be better to briefly explain about it.
 * There are a lot of red links. Is it difficult to create a little stub article for them? Giving links to nothing is not a good way for a reader of a FA-level article. For example, in the first section, it mainly explains about the Australia Station, but it links to nowhere.
 * I found also a mixing of two citation styles: footnotes and embedded links in the body. Please choose one, per WP:CITE.
 * Images are good, but I found they are just simply put there as decorations. Some captions are not really describing the text/paragraph/section where they are placed. One image at the bottom is really awkward of what the purpose of it.
 * Please refer again WP:MOS of how to sectioning References, External links and See also. Mixing External links inside the list of sources is not preferred.
 * Please fix References. I see some uninformative entries. For instance, only a url link information, an entry of only author and title without information of what kind of publication it is, etc. There is a preferable WP:CITET templates if editors want to use it, but it is not mandatory. Try to give enough information about the source to mantain its verifiability.
 * "A map of the Australia Station is available between pages 52 and 53 of the first volume of the Official History of the RAN in World War II." → is not a good sentence. Why don't use ordinary citing? Then the pages, publisher, etc. will be given in the References section.
 * Some jargons are needed to be briefly explained. I am baffled with the meaning of "IJN".
 * IJN=Imperial Japanese Navy. &mdash; Moondyne 00:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also reduce entries in External links. I found entries in the External links that are used already as sources. Entries in See also are also wikilinks that are not yet linked from the main article. It is not good to point to an article so many times for a reader (see Kirill comments above).
 * As overall, this is a good article. I only commented some technical issues above. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Response Thanks for all your votes and comments. I've removed the see also section and the red links which I don't think will ever have an article (eg, articles on individual naval captains) and created some stubs as suggested. I'm a bit confused about Indon's comments on using references, however. I don't believe that there are any examples embedded links being used in the body of the text and the only references which provide minimal details are for sources which were fully referenced the first time they were used. Could you please provide some specific examples and perhaps an example of an article with the referencing style you prefer? --Nick Dowling 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The embedded link is now gone. It was the external link in the main article of the sentence: "A map of the Australia Station is available between pages 52 and 53 of the first volume of the Official History of the RAN in World War II." that I reviewed before. Citation style is okay right now. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Good article, very well referenced, on a theatre that sometimes gets less attention. Buckshot06 05:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very impressive. However, I think there's a bit of an over-saturation of images in the first section. michael talk 10:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It is very comprehensive, is extremely strongly referenced and makes good use of public domain material. The only improvement I could ask for would be a map noting the general location of incidents and engagements, although I appreciate that would be difficult! --bainer (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)