Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Sio/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 01:38, 22 January 2011.

Battle of Sio

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... A small article on a minor battle, one of a series that I hope to one day assemble into a featured topic on the New Guinea campaign. If you wanted to understand that campaign, reading this article might be a good start. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Images File:Fortification_Point.PNG is quite large and may cause problems on slow internet connections, however WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  00:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:-
 * Can you check the links to the pdfs? I could not get any of them to work
 * Checked. All loaded fine, both manually and with the external links tool Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They still don't work for me. I'd be interested to know if it's a problem for anyone else. I don't normally have any problems with pdfs. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rechecked. From a different physical location, on a different platform. Still loaded fine, both manually and with the external links tool. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt these links work for you, but they are still denied me. Can another editor please try them? Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian, I tried the first two pdf links and they loaded for me, slowly. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 18: the link should go the actual page of this source that supports the cited material. At the moment it only goes to an introductory page.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs 41 and 42: Dashes, not hyphens, required in page ranges
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no citations to the Japanese source [Yoshihara, Tsutomu (1955)] listed under references
 * Removed. Only the Australia War Memorial translation was used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. As I couldn't reach the pdfs I have not carried out any spotchecks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments' I'm close to supporting, but have the following comments:
 * I thought that the New Guinea campaign began well before the operations at Lae and Nadzab in 1943.
 * Historians used to distinguish between the Papuan campaign in 1942-43, which included Kokoda, Milne Bay, Buna and Wau; and the 1943-44 New Guinea Campaign. The former was a Japanese offensive, the latter an Allied one, with the former was fought in Papua and the latter in New Guinea. However some sources in recent years do not distinguish between the two. Notably, the Wikipedia. So I changed the reference to the "New Guinea Campaign" to "Operation Cartwheel". Hope this is okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The events of the Battle of Wareo should be briefly summarised (particularly given that it's a red link at present)
 * Added a sentence about Wareo. I was intending to write it up one day, but you know how it is... Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest merging the short tactics and logistics sections
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The PDFs from the AWM work fine for me, but the references need page/scan numbers to be added
 * I've added some page numbers. The two reports have the page numbers of the reports; the war diaries use the PDF page numbers. I have no idea why he cannot load the PDFs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support All my comments are now addressed; great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Query interesting read and a useful subject, but:
 * 1) "Because of the extremely rough seas—the most difficult that the 532nd EBSR had ever encountered—most supply missions were by night" sounds odd to me. Why would people respond to rough seas with nighttime operations? Please would recheck your sources on that.
 * 2) * added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) ** thanks, I 'm happy with that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm struggling a little with the geography, and thought there are maps I'm not greatly helped by them. Ideally I would like this to have a map that puts the battle zone into some context - as it is I'm not sure whether we are talking about the north east coat or the eastern end of Papua New Guinea.
 * 5) *The north east coast of New Guinea. I've added a nice new map to give it some context. Let me know if you need a still larger scale map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) **Nice map, thanks for that. A larger scale one showing relevant Airfields, bases and the rest of the frontline would be nice but not essential.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm assuming that we are somewhat lacking on articles about locations and even rivers in that part of the world as there are few links and I couldn't find one river I tried to link to.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) * Yes, that's quite true. Even today the area is sparsely inhabited. Most articles are still red links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support nice work.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments - Not quite ready to support, there are some prose glitches and concerns about comprehensibility that need addressing.
 * Pretend I know nothing about military campaigns - what's a "breakout and pursuit" phase of a campaign? Do we have something we can link to to explain for novices?
 * Added links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * "Now the Japanese Army had to carry out an exhausting withdrawal." this sentence jars on me, can it be worded better to flow with the preceding and following sentence?
 * Removed sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Background:
 * "…the commander of II Corps…" Can we get an "Australian" somewhere in here to make it clear we're no longer talking about the Japanese?
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nonetheless, Berryman's coastal advance jumped off as planned." What advance??? First mention of it that I can see… it's rather jarring, we need more information here to make it clear what is going on.
 * It says earlier in the paragraph that Berryman pushed for a coastal advance, whikle Wootten wanted to mop up the Jpanese forces in the hills. Re-word to "Meanwhile, Berryman's coastal advance had commenced as planned on 5 December." Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Offensive:
 * "Had it included an officer with experience in maintaining a large force over a native carrier line, it might have more quickly reached the conclusion that the Japanese force could not be maintained over an inland track." I have no idea what bearing this has on the surrounding text - what difference does this make and why is it relevant? For that matter, it is only vaguely clear what is meant by this sentence, I get the idea that the planners didn't include folks with experience in naval logistics, and it impeded their planning … somehow, but that somehow isn't made clear, at least to me.
 * Added "as was first assumed." Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who concluded that "the Japanese logistic system was in the final stages of breakdown"? Is it Coates? or someone else on the scene?
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tactics:
 * "Amphibian scouts from the US 532nd Engineer…" I think you mean "Amphibious" here, as I'm pretty sure even the U. S. Army has never employed frog troops. Even us Yanks aren't that desperate.
 * But true. The Engineer Special Brigades were known as "amphibian engineers" and the scouts were indeed called the "amphibian scouts".
 * That indeed may be what they were called, but it's really jarring here in this context. Would it not be better to go with the word that your readers will understand better rather than a very odd usage of another word that will confuse the reader? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. "Amphibious" is reserved for the navy and marines. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you're going to have readers that aren't familiar with that thinking you're calling the people frogs. You need to explain this or change it, it's VERY jarring and seems utterly wrong if you're not a military person. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That same sentence is very awkward and would be better off simplified or split into two sentences.
 * How? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had any ideas, I'd have suggested them (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you link "carriers" here, instead of up above where you first mention native carriers?
 * The sections were moved around. Switched links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LCVPs? LCMs? DUKWs? Please expand these acronyms on first usage.
 * Spelt out LCVP. LCM was already done. Nothing can be done about DUKW - it isn't an acronym! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortification point:
 * "jumped off" seems slangish can we use another more encyclopedic phrase?
 * It isn't slang. It is a military term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and turned up no issues with plagiarism. The sourcing looks good to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments –  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Capitalize states (as in United States) toward the end of the lead.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortification Point: Remove space before comma after "Between 5 and 20 December".
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Saidor: "The original intention had been for this brigade to go to Lae relieve the 29th Infantry Brigade". Feels like it's missing "and" or "to" before "relieve".
 * Inserted "to". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the references, several of the page ranges are missing en dashes, which should be used in formatting in place of hyphens.
 * I think I've got them all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – My comments have all been addressed and the article looks good.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Support
 * Links to article on 2/15 and 2/17 Infantry Battalions in the Sio section would be nice. Minor caveats in an otherwise nice article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of red links to them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Looks very good but a few minor queries/comments:
 * Offensive against the Japanese supply system
 * Had it included an officer with experience in maintaining a large force over a native carrier line, it might have more quickly reached the conclusion that the Japanese force could not be maintained over an inland track, as was first assumed. -- This sentence is phrased more like a critique than an encyclopedic article, not sure of the best way around it but I don't think it should remain as is.
 * It think it was sourced from a critique. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Collecting centres for native foodstuffs and tracks leading from the coast were bombed by the US Fifth Air Force. This not only reduced food stocks available to the Japanese, but also drove away the native carriers. -- Was driving away the native carriers considered a good or a bad by-product of the exercise (according to the cited source, of course)? If it was one thing or the other, I think this could be rephrased to imply that.
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry to appear to be pressing for more staid prose but "he made a point of telling him what great work his PT boats were doing" also doesn't sound too encyclopedic, unless "great work" were the exact words (in which case they should be quoted) -- how about "he made a point of congratulating him on the excellent (or "fine") work of his PT boats" or some such?
 * This proved the most difficult to re-word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Operations
 * Keeping the tanks up with the advance proved difficult -- How about It proved difficult for the tanks to keep up with the advance?
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know who the 18 B-25 Mitchell and 12 A-20 Boston bombers belonged to? If Australian I'm guessing the Bostons were 22SQN but there was probably more than one RAAF (and/or NEI) Mitchell unit around. In any case "A-20 Boston" sounds a bit 'off' as the US generally used the term "A-20 Havoc" while the Commonwealth simply said "Boston". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source says "Mitchells" and "Bostons"; but the mission was flown by V Bomber Command so all the aircraft involved were American. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All those mods look good, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Images
 * I've marked the AWM images that are in WP space as Commons candidates so you might want to move them sometime, though I don't think it's a reqirement for FAC.
 * There's no requirement for images to be in commons.
 * The only anomalous one is the PT Boat shot, which claims to be a US Navy work and therefore PD (which would be correct) but also has an Australian PD tag -- one of the tags must be wrong and should be removed.
 * No, they can both be correct. Taken in Australia means falls under Australian law, and the copyright has expired. Taken by US Navy means US Navy is the copyright holder, and therefore public domain in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we may have to defer to an image licensing expert but I doubt that you need the PD-Australia tag if the sourcing info in the image file is correct and the US Navy took it, wherever it was. I think the US Navy tag is all that's required and the Australian one confuses matters. (If it was an Australian image then the Australian PD tag would be correct and the one needed to additionally claim PD in the US would be PD-1996.) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Summary -- Structure, prose, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials (with minor caveat re. PT Boat image noted above) all look good -- happy to support, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.