Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Tenaru

Battle of the Tenaru
Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for Featured Article consideration. Self-nomination. Cla68 10:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, excellent article in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Date links...I believe full m/d/y dates should be linked, but not m/d only links. Rlevse 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, any link containing both a month and a day is subject to the user date preferences, and needs to be linked (e.g. 2 June versus June 2). Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak object &mdash; Overall it's pretty good, with only a few issues that I think need to be addressed. Neutral because of the image quality. Support
 * The first paragraph should clarify that this battle took place on the island of Guadalcanal.
 * Done.
 * The image at the top has some distracting scanning artifacts. Can a better-quality image be provided?
 * Unfortunately, I can't fix this one at this time. I've searched all over the place and can't find a better copy.
 * There's a slightly better copy on a fortunecity site. Is there not another image that could be used? &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded a much clearer image. Cla68 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is an "Element" in this context? Is that a battalion-strength battle group?
 * "Element" was the word used in Japanese communications at that time to refer to this detachment from Ichiki's regiment. The use of the word "element" was probably due to the fact that the size of the unit was larger than a battalion, but smaller than a regiment.  I've added some clarification to the text.
 * The info box lists 777 Japanese killed; the introduction: 900-128=772 killed. Which is correct? I know it's a minor difference, but it's good to be consistent.
 * I was rounding for aesthetic purposes in the intro, I've now changed it to read 917. I know that 917-15 (captured)-128 (killed) doesn't equal 777 but that's what the source states are the numbers.  The source admits that the numbers don't completely add up but it's the best that can be done with the surviving primary source available.
 * The map is a little difficult to decipher, being in black and white and apparently showing both U.S. and Japanese attacks (even though the legend states the arrows shows the "axis of Japanese attacks".)
 * I changed the map to a color one.
 * In the prelude it states that landing took place "without unloading all of the heavy equipment," but later the divisional artillery is used in support. Can the unloading situation be clarified? Was the heavy equipment brought in later?
 * I clarified that paragraph to state that the divisional artillery was landed. It was among the only heavy equipment landed.
 * The "Aftermath" section states that this was a "large land battle", but apparently it was only a battalion-strength attack. Large, to me, usually means a corps or army-level battle.
 * Ok. I removed the word "large."
 * Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I addressed each of your comments above. Cla68 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope I've resolved your last concern. Cla68 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Magnifique. Thanks again. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. "That night, as the transports unloaded, the Allied warships screening the transports were surprised and defeated by a Japanese warship force of seven cruisers and one destroyer, commanded by Japanese Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa. Three U.S. and one Australian cruisers were sunk and one other U.S. cruiser and two destroyers were damaged in the Battle of Savo Island. Turner withdrew all remaining Allied naval forces by the evening of August 9 without unloading all of the heavy equipment, provisions, and troops from the transports, although most of the divisional artillery was landed." I know Cla68 is always very carefully citating his articles. I was thus wondering why are these facts uncitated (a minor detail in a great article, but I sometimes stick on details!). --Yannismarou 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I added a citation for that section. Cla68 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support.--Yannismarou 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Good article! Kyriakos 03:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Very nice article. Raymond Palmer 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. You need a little work with references. In particular, as you have only one referenced work by Frank, you should reference to it with "Frank, p. 153", not "Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 153". If you refer several times to the same page of the same reference, do not create several notes, but a single one; e.g., the casualities references are actually the same.--Panarjedde 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)