Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Bismarck Sea/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 User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013.

Battle of the Bismarck Sea

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A perennial favourite for "On this Day.." on 2 March (six times!). I am hoping that we have have it as Today's Featured Article on the 70th Anniversary of the battle on 2 March 2013. One problem: it isn't a Featured Article! Let's see about that... Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Check out the newsreel video of the battle in the external links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * State for Bolling AFB?
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Location for Yoshihara?
 * Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First map could be bigger
 * Made bigger. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Second map caption should use endash
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sentences that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, and those that are should
 * Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * File:BismarckSeaShip.jpg: source link returns error (perhaps because the URL seems to specify a platform that I'm not using)
 * Switched to using the standard AWM Image template Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Attack_On_Japanese_Transporter_(Battle_Of_The_Bismarck_Sea).jpg: second source link returns error
 * I think they have disappeared. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * File:BismarckSeaLowLevel.jpg: can description be a bit more specific about where on that site this image can be found?
 * Yes, I have that book here. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hawkeye7. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was asked to, and agreed to participate in WikiCup. If participation becomes problematic then I will withdraw. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) Comments by Cwmhiraeth - It states in the WikiCup rules "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC" so I hereby declare it!
 * "Supreme Allied Commander South West Pacific Area". So, I've inserted a comma previously after "Commander", do you prefer it without the comma? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a grammatical issue really. So I've inserted a comma. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "the air mission was ...": Quotes should generally be attributed in the text, per general style guides (such as Chicago) and per varous Wikipedia guidelines. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "%": There's an argument that WP:MOSNUM would prefer "per cent", but I don't think it's all that important.
 * I can't see that though; WP:NUMERAL says Percentages are usually written with figures, e.g. 10 percent or 10%. It should be "per cent" btw; the article is in Australian English. (It would be moree historically accurate written in a confused jumble of Australian and American English.) Aside: do Americans write "permil" for ‰? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "permil" is quite rare here. WP:% in MOSNUM says: "Percent (American English) or per cent (British English) is commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings." - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My first impression was of a very well-written article and much of the prose flows easily along. A few minor comments:


 * "Nonetheless, the convoy succeeded in reaching Lae on 7 January and landing the troops, only to join in Okabe's defeat in the Battle of Wau." - To someone like me who knows little on this subject, this sentence is not self-explanatory.
 * Re-phrased to Nonetheless, the convoy succeeded in reaching Lae on 7 January and landing its troops, but Okabe was defeated in the Battle of Wau. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "In the South West Pacific, the primary mission of the Allied bomber force was interdiction of Japanese supply lines, especially the sea lanes" - "interdiction" seems a curious word to use here.
 * It's a highly technical term. Linked to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "But the results of the effort against the January convoy were very disappointing." - Maybe join this sentence with the previous one so that you don't have a sentence starting with "but".
 * Rephrased to In the South West Pacific, a conventional strategic bombing campaign was out of the question because industrial targets in Japan were well beyond the range of even the largest strategic bombers operating from bases in Australia and New Guinea, so the primary mission of the Allied bomber force was interdiction of Japanese supply lines, especially the sea lanes. The results of the effort against the January convoy were therefore very disappointing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A number of places are mentioned in the article ( Rabaul, Lae, Finschhafen etc). It would be nice to have a map showing their locations as an aid to understanding the account. The present maps are low resolution, in Japanese and limited to Japanese vessel movements. Ideally the map would show where the American air bases were located, where the convoy was when attacked etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The map is in English as well as Japanese. Allied air attacks are marked in read. added this to the caption. The points where the Japanese convoy were attacked are marked in red with the dates and times. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What you say may be correct but the print is miniscule and the red lines difficult to distinguish. A better map would improve the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment -- I don't know yet if I'll review in detail and therefore recuse myself from delegate duties but, hedging my bets, I did spot one thing at a quick glance: Joe Hewitt's involvement (as No. 9 Group commander after Garing had done the RAAF planning and departed) either needs to be cited in the infobox or mentioned in the main body and cited there. You might want to check if any other data in the infobox isn't cited elsewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a bit about the command arrangements in New Guinea, thereby mentioning Joe Hewitt. I'm not sure about the rules regarding delegates and reviews, but in the past the delegates have sometimes made copius comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66
--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a WikiCup partipant so take these with a grain of salt.
 * For those who don't know, Sturmvogel is leading Wikicup by a country mile. I don't think this article is eligible; all the work on it was done last year. I nommed it because the anniversary of the battle is coming up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Overlinked Rabaul, New Guinea, Wewak, Imperial General Headquarters, RAAF, Fifth Air Force, Lae, Madang
 * Removed. Allowed for duplication between lead and body. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What were these Japanese high speed transports? The link goes to US converted destroyers, but did the Japanese do the same sort of thing?
 * Yes. Actually, the Japanese did it first, and the Americans copied them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This plan was acknowledged to be risky, because Allied air power in the area was strong. The comma here looks to be unnecessary.
 * Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Should these two sentences be combined or connected? The XVIII Army staff gave the operation a 50–50 chance of success. They held war games that predicted losses of four out of ten transports, and between 30 and 40 aircraft.
 * No, but I have reversed their order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Link aircraft carrier, fighter group, magazine, landing craft and autocannon for 20 mm cannon
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Were Pappy's modifications tied to this battle or were they just serendipitous? Dates here would be helpful
 * Yes. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bit more helpful, but a date when Pappy began his experiments would be still be useful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The chronology of the Allied tactics section doesn't flow well. We start with poor results from the January attack, review weaponry modifications and skip-bombing tactics, presumably both already in practice and then review the available Allied air units. I'd have to think more for a suggestion on how exactly to fix this, but it does need fixing.
 * I think it flows quite nicely. The point is that Kenney was trying new ideas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's only partially made clear. Maybe I'm just hung up on the idea that these changes were made since the failure in January. Obviously some are like the attacks on multiple axes, but still...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of tonnage are you talking about for the Japanese transports? GRT, DWT? And what are the cubic meters for? I've never seen them used for any ship in all my readings.
 * Per the link, GRT. This is a unit of volume. For example, the Japanese transport Aiyo Maru was 2,746 tons (GRT) but 4,331 tons (DWT). The former is used, as it is what appears in all the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell the reader up front that these are GRT. Just like you tell xe that a given ship is a destroyer or whatever; don't make xe work for it. I presume that you're converting from GRT to derive the cubic meters, but why? It seems pointless and I've never seen any source do it when dealing with wartime merchantmen or convoys. The GRT is normally all that's given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't realise that they were gross register tons. Changed the first occurrence to write it out in long hand.
 * I never clicked on the link to see since I was going to ask you what they were. So what's up with the cubic meters?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think they should be removed? It is the common unit which all landlubbers will understand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you're overthinking here; readers may not understand confuse GRT and displacement, but they can easily understand the ratios between the tonnages to know relative sizes of the ships. Which is all that's really necessary unless they're the quartermaster in charge of loading those selfsame ships. So, yes, please delete the cubic meters.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I resemble that remark! Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This seem kind of redundant unless there were naval troops involved: army troops
 * Yes, there were. See the OrBat for details. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because of the conditional "if" at the start of the sentence, shouldn't "maximised" be "would maximise"? If the ships turned to face them, the standard procedure in case of a torpedo attack, the Beaufighters maximised the damage they inflicted on the ships' anti-aircraft guns, bridges and crews in strafing
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit awkward: Tokitsukaze was also hit and fatally damaged, and later sank
 * tautology. Deleted "later sank". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Howabout adding "also" in front of "collided"? The destroyer Arashio was hit, and collided with the transport Nojima, disabling her
 * No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This reads oddly, but it may just be the difference between US and BritEng handling of collective nouns: One band of 18 landed on Kiriwina, where it was captured by PT-114
 * Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: I reviewed this when it was at A-class a while back. I've checked the changes since then and made a few tweaks today (please check you are happy with those). I believe this meets the criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Given we have a non-MilHist review along with project support, I'm satisfied the article's pretty well ready to promote but, before that, under Allied intelligence you state that Hewitt "instructed" Whitehead. Is this the right word? Makes it sound like Hewitt was Whitehead's superior... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was Kenney. Got changed in the copyediting somewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad I asked... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.