Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)

Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for FA consideration. Self-nomination with helpful polishing from other editors. Cla68 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, another excellent article from Cla68; all the issues raised in the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Rather very well-done, although I want to pick, after I go over the Sei Whale article once more. I would like a map of the Solomon Islands that pings its location on the scale of the eventual war in the Pacific, a map that just shows the islands and their relationship to Japan, Australia, Midway Atoll (ask User:Reisio, or User:Geo Swan, imo, if you don't do your own) early on in the article.  First, or probably second, occurence of name "Solomon Islands" should be formal name at time (British Solomon Islands Protectorate?), "initiating in the critical" might be "initiating the critical" (or is that dialect), US battleship fleet" --> "Pacific Fleet" first time.   KP Botany 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Cla68 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Kyriakos 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral: A quick comment, why are there three campaign boxes on the article? The invasion itself isn't on the last two. If we're going to start listing the grandfather campaigns, I can see a slippery slope developing (Telugi --> Solomon Islands --> Pacific 1942 --> Pacific War --> World War II).  In my opinion, only direct parents and children should be used as campaign boxes.  Oberiko 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, both of the latter two are parent boxes of the campaign (that is, the Solomon Islands campaign is linked to on them); I think it's become pretty conventional now to include, where available, up to three levels of campaignboxes.
 * Sub-engagements of the article topic (e.g. a campaignbox for a war on the war's article)
 * "Sibling" engagements of the article topic (e.g. a campaignbox listing a battle on the battle's article)
 * "Sibling" engagements of the broader campaign (e.g. a campaignbox listing a campaign on an article about a battle in that campaign, as here)
 * In other words, the campaignboxes place the battle within the immediate campaign as well as placing the immediate campaign within whatever broader sequence of events is present. (I doubt this will lead up to the slippery slope idea, actually; certainly, nobody's tried it so far.  WWII battles are somewhat unusual in having a campaignbox scheme that's not purely a tree; for almost everything else, the current guideline and the available selection of campaignboxes would only allow a maximum of two campaignboxes on a single article.) Kirill Lokshin 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I also think the last general infobox is redundant. --Brand спойт 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be true; as I said, the WWII campaignboxes are rather more messily nested than most others. It's something that would best be fixed by cleaning up the campaignbox structure centrally. Kirill Lokshin 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Pacific War was, obviously, a large and complex conflict. That's one of the reasons why there are three campaignboxes in this particular article instead of just two.  This battle was the first battle in the Solomon Islands campaign, which is why that campaign box is there.  The second campaignbox, "Pacific campaigns 1941-42" exists to show the series of Japanese advances in the first year of the Pacific War, because the involved battles crossed several separate campaigns, but were part of Japan's single campaign to acquire and secure territory and resources to support and secure its empire, and this battle was one of those.  The third box is the "parent" box for the Solomon Islands campaign.  Sure, the campaignbox system for this particular conflict is somewhat messy, but so far it's the best attempt at organizing the complicated history of the war in the Pacific. Cla68 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has a fine linking mechanism: one back jump to Pacific War on the top of the conflict box and two back jumps to Pacific Ocean theater and South West Pacific theatre. So in my opinion there is no need to repeat, the parent box could be moved lower, to the reference section at least. --Brand спойт 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment very interesting article but the lead paragraph is way to long and detailed. Please see WP:LEAD. FrummerThanThou 03:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm? The lead is three paragraphs, which is pretty standard for an article of this length; it's supposed to "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article", after all.  Or did you mean something else? Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about it...see Frummer's comments to the next two FACs on this page... Gzkn 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well documented and written. Hmains 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well written. Ac s 4b 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)