Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Morotai/archive1


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009.

Battle of Morotai

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This article on a small but strategically significant battle of World War II was peer reviewed in February and passed a Military History project A class review in March. It has since been further improved by myself and a number of other editors (including, but not limited to, User:Cla68 and User:Ian Rose) and I think that it now meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments --an odd name 01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No dabs or dead external links.
 * All images have alt text. Check the following, though:
 * Throughout, it uses "peninsular"—do you mean "peninsula"?
 * See the guideline on map alts (one I've had recent trouble with). For example, "Lines and symbols are superimposed over the map" doesn't tell us what sort of battle or movement File:Morotai landings 15 September 1944.jpg is trying to show.  The map alts all have similar issues; the photo alts look fine, though.
 * Dates throughout are Month Day, Year. [ I changed one] per WP:MILMOS, but I may be wrong.  I see no date issues otherwise. (added on 01:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for those comments. I've re-written the alt text for the maps to describe what they depict as you suggest - does this now look OK? Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The alts are all good now. --an odd name 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Very nice article, I believe that it meets FA criteria too. I have some minor comments, though:
 * In the opposing forces section, words are used for numbers greater than ten (in discussing the number of ships), yet in most other places numbers are used...
 * could a convert be added to the distance given in the second paragraph of the Allied landings section ("2,000 yards inland")?

Anyway, well done and thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the second one, and that wording was the result of feedback in either the peer review or A class review which suggested that prose containing a mix of numbers and words looked odd (eg, "one LSD, 24 LCIs, 25 LSTs, 20 LCTs and eleven LCIs" was a bit awkward). Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Definitely meets FA criteria. Looked at it a few times and couldn't think of any improvements. The article is especially impressive in that there are no major sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Why is there no casualties and losses section in the infobox? - DSachan (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In short, because there is no source which provides anything approaching a comprehensive number of casualties during the fighting between September 1944 and August 1945 (the period covered by the article). I've mentioned the casualty numbers for the periods where these are available in the article's text. I removed the casualties section from the infobox in July (leaving a note at Talk:Battle of Morotai) and no-one has either complained or provided a sourced figure. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2c:
 * Please supply original publication date: 31st Infantry Division (1993 (reprint)).
 * Done
 * Please supply publication location for all presses (eg Infantry Journal Press. )
 * Done
 * For non standard document identifiers please name the identification system (eg 6429367X.; ASIN B000ID3YRK.)
 * Converted to ISBNs
 * Chapter in book? Book in series?  Help us out, make it more explicit (and generally, chuck [Series] behind series names which don't contain the word series]): Long, Gavin (1963). The Final Campaigns. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 1 – Army. Canberra: Australian War Memorial.
 * I've included the series name in the 'series' section of the appropriate citation templates. Chapters are displayed quite differently, so there shouldn't be any confusion.
 * 1c:
 * Seriously concerned that Willoughby is a primary source (as its MacArthur's reports) and being used to substantiate facts (Willoughby, Charles A. (editor in chief) (1966). Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area Volume II – Part I. Reports of General MacArthur. )
 * The book was actually written by ex-Japanese Army officers and is pretty much the only source of information on the Japanese experiences in this battle (the 1994 introduction to the book states, correctly, that it's a "unique Japanese version of their operations in the Southwest Pacific that remains one of the few English-language descriptions of Imperial Army campaigns during World War II"). It's been used in other FAs such as Landing at Nadzab and Take Ichi convoy as well as A class articles including Admiralty Islands campaign, Battle of Kaiapit, Battle of Wau, Landing at Saidor and Landing at Nadzab. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never considered these to be primary documents. They were created from the monographs, a set of 200 odd accounts written by ex-Japanese Army officers. These are hard to find but there are microfilm copies in the National Library, War Memorial, and ADFA. Some were written from memory but others were compiled from orders and diaries and therefore are more like secondary documents. There are very few sources from the Japanese side, as so much documentation was destroyed during retreats and by Allied action, and there were few survivors of many important actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources in the Wikipedia to substantiate facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how you've exhausted sources, especially contemporary ones and recent scholarship? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As Hawkeye7 notes, there is no single history which covers this battle from its inception in September 1944 until the end of the war; most sources cover either the first few weeks of the battle, the development of the Allied base or the fighting in early 1945. As a result, I've pieced the story together by consulting dozens of works (some useful, some not) in two major university libraries, including one which claims to have the best military history collection in the southern hemisphere and a focus on the Pacific War, and the National Library of Australia. There isn't really any 'recent scholarship' on this topic; Stephen R. Taafe's 1998 book was the most recent I could find that had a chapter or more on the topic (and he only covered the landing). I'm confident that I've consulted every significant work concerning on the battle and believe that the diverse references I've used in the article speak for themselves in this regards. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Support – Great read, well-written and meets all FA standards. Just found a couple of picky comments, which I'll quickly mention:
 * Japanese response: Hyphen needed for "south west", perhaps? (look toward end of section)


 * Air attacks and Allied mopping up: "though a attack was conducted on the night of March 22." "a" → "an".  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I've just made those changes. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is right. The hyphenated form is British; the article is in American English, so it should be "southwest" throughout. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 Image review: Images good. File:Landing craft 017615.jpg, File:US troops landing into deep water Morotai 017591.jpg, File:Wama airstrip April 1945 OG1934.jpg, and File:Japanese surrender party Morotai.jpg are all in the public domain if their country of origin is Australia; since the AWM seems to think that they're in the public domain, I can accept that they are indeed of Australian origin. However, the tagging should be improved: rather than simply stating that they're in the public domain because the AWM says so, it should state that they're in the public domain in Australia because they are photographs taken before January 1, 1955, and that they are in the public domain in the United States because they were in the public domain in the country of origin on January 1, 1996. Everything else looks good. Steve Smith (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've replaced the tags with PD-Australia Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That tag is actually problematic, since it claims that the image was created in Australia (which these obviously were not), but the problems with the tag are probably beyond the scope of this FAC, so I'm marking image concerns as resolved.  As an FYI, I've raised issues with the template here. Steve Smith (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments, mainly minor prose issues. I haven't had time yet to look at the final couple of sections but will do so. Can I say that in general I concur with the positive comments in this FAC review - this is clearly a comprehensive and well-researched article.
 * Lead: I have issues with the first sentence. I don't think that a military action that extends over eleven months can be describes as "taking place" between the given dates. "Taking place" is OK for a specific event (e.g. "The assassination of JFK took place on 22 November 1963") but not for what appears to be a prolonged and generally intermittent campaign. I recommend that the opening sentence is reworded to something like: "The Battle of Morotai, part of the Pacific War, began on September 15, 1944 and continued intermittently until the end of World War II."
 * Done.


 * Background
 * "Morotai emerged as an area of importance to the Japanese military in early 1944 when it began to develop the neighbouring larger island of Halmahera..." Ambiguous as worded. I believe that "it" refers to the Japanese military, though this is not clear. Suggest reword: "In early 1944 Morotai emerged as an area of importance to the Japanese military, which began to develop the neighbouring larger island of Halmahera..."
 * Done


 * Personal opinion, ignore if you like: "passed on this information" reads more smoothly as "passed this information on..."
 * Done


 * Third para, final sentence, the word "simultaneously" is not really necessary (and definitely not worth splitting an infinitive for).
 * I don't agree - the date for the landing on Morotai was set so the Pacific Fleet could simultaneously protect both operations. I've tweaked the wording so it's clear that the timetable allowed the fleet's main body to, in effect, do two things at the same time.


 * Opposing forces
 * "The Allied force assigned responsibility for Morotai..." Slight confusion here, which could be resolved by saying "The Allied force assigned to Morotai..."
 * Done


 * "The Tradewind Task Force came under the overall command of the United States Sixth Army and its main combat elements were the XI Corps headquarters..." etc. This long sentence would be better divided by a semicolon after "Sixth Army" rather than an "and"
 * Done


 * Last paragraph: numbers greater than 10 are normally given numerically.
 * Yeah, but the combination of written and numeric numbers in prose looks rather odd, and writing the numbers seems to be the least-worst solution in this instance.


 * Preliminary attacks: "Landing rehearsals were conducted at Aitape and Wakde Island in early September and the invasion convoy gathered at Maffin Bay on September 11 and set out for Morotai the next day." Two "ands" makes an unwieldly sentence, suggest slight rephrase. (Note: There may be other sentences with multiple ands which I have not noted)
 * Done


 * Allied landings
 * I'm a bit surprised that the sinking of the Seawolf by its own forces is not highlighted more in the article, as this seems to be a major incident of "friendly fire" (not to mention a comprehensive foulup).
 * It's not really very relevant to this battle (as it involved a submarine which happened to be transiting the area being attacked by anti-submarine aircraft operating from carriers which departed the area the next day) so I didn't want to spend too much time on it.


 * "After securing Morotai,..." A date should be provided.
 * Tweaked to avoid this.


 * "These were the first offensive operations overseen by the Eighth United States Army, and the naval commander for both operations was Captain Lord Ashbourne of the British Royal Navy on board HMS Ariadne." Unrelated clauses connected by "and". Also, "Royal Navy" not "British Royal Navy". This sentence is the first indication of a combined operation using British forces; perhaps some prior explanation due?
 * Tweaked. HMS Ariadne had no role in the landing at Morotai (which was conducted by the US and Australian forces as described by the article).
 * Understood, but if the occupation of the Asia Islands is seen as part of the Battle of Morotai, then some explanation of the British presence should be given. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Base development
 * Use double quotes in, for example "crash strip" and "Wama Drome" (but why is Wama Drome in quotes at all?)
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try to complete my prose review soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A few final comments
 * Base development
 * Third para, third sentence is another "double and". Slight rewording advised. Also the latter part of the sentence would be tidier if rephrased "continued to be expanded until November, when capacity for 129,000 barrels of fuel was available."
 * Done
 * "...with the first being completed on October 8." Does "the first" refer to docks or liberty ships?
 * The docks, I've tweaked the wording a bit.
 * Suggestion: "Due to" is a rather inelegant way to begin a paragraph. I'd change this to "A revision to Allied plans meant that Morotai..."
 * Done; that sentence had been bugging me
 * Japanese response
 * "Attempts to run the blockade were detected by Allied codebreakers..." I imagine the codebreakers detected the plans, rather than the attempts.
 * Not necessarily; the turn around time for code breaking was often very short by this stage of the war. I've tweaked this a bit.
 * "The American regiment moved into Japanese-held territory on December 26 and advanced on the Japanese position from the south-west and north after landing on the island's west coast." Sentence seems constructed the wrong way round. Shouldn't it be "After landing on the island's west coast the American regiment moved into Japanese-held territory on December 26 and advanced on the Japanese position from the south-west and north."?
 * Yep, done
 * Air attacks ans allied mopping up
 * Triple and-ing in the sentence beginning "While 54 of the raids..."
 * Fixed
 * The phrase "conducted on the night of..." is repeated in close proximity. The second could be rephrased. Likewise in the next sentence "only"
 * Done
 * "The 31st Division remained at Morotai until April 12, 1945 when it was replaced by the 93rd Infantry Division and departed to participate in the liberation of Mindanao." I think a better construction would be "The 31st Division remained at Morotai until April 12, 1945 when it departed to participate in the liberation of Mindanao, and was replaced by the 93rd Infantry Division."
 * Done
 * Aftermath: no particular comments.

Most of these are pretty minor matters. I have also done a few small tweaks myself. Competent work (yours, not mine!) Brianboulton (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your excellent comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: The issues I have raised have all been dealt with satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent article.  My contribution to the article was small.  In fact, I'm not sure I remember what I contributed.  Anyway, as someone pointed out above, there are few, if any sources that cover this event to any great extent, so this article appears to have been put together by combing through a long list of possible references.  I'm sure it must have been a lot of work, but the results speak for themselves.  Again, fine job.  Cla68 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.