Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Arawe


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted EyeSerene talk 08:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe

 * Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers a regimental-sized diversionary operation conducted by the United States to draw Japanese forces away from western New Britain prior to the Battle of Cape Gloucester in December 1943. The article recently passed a GA nomination, and has since been further improved. As such, I think that it may now meet the A class criteria and would appreciate other editors' views on this. If this review is successful I'm planning on nominating the article for FA status in the future, so suggestions for ways to further develop the article would be much appreciated. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support
 * Well researched and readable - enjoyed it.
 * Minor thoughts, with FA in mind:
 * Arawe - it isn't linked in the lead, and it isn't clear that what it is (an island, a peninsula, etc.) from the surrounding text.
 * Tweaked. The usage in the histories is that 'Arawe' is the general area
 * "Japanese air units heavily raided" - "heavily raided" in conjunction with air unit read oddly to me (I'd think of "air raids", but not "aircraft raiding" somewhere - might just be me though!)
 * Yes, that was a bit awkward - I've tweaked it
 * "western and central pacific" - is the capitalisation here right?
 * No, I've added a capital P
 * 'L'- under the MOS, should this be "L"?
 * Probably - fixed
 * the 236th Anti-aircraft Artillery Battalion (Searchlight) less elements," - I found I had to read this twice, because I read it as "searchlight-less elements" the first time around; don't know if the ordering could be tweaked?
 * Translated into plain(er) English
 * " two batteries of the 470th Anti-aircraft Artillery Battalion (Automatic Weapons), A Company, 1st Amphibious Tractor Battalion " - again, the A company bit needed reading twice to connect it with the tractor battalion: would semi-colons rather than commas help?
 * Tweaked (by changing it to "A" Company of the 1st Amphibious Tractor Battalion) - how does that look?
 * ", two patrol craft and two submarine chasers and a service group with three LSTs" - are both "and"s necessary here?
 * Tweaked - that sentence was awfully long, so I've had a go at splitting it into two sentences.
 * "A company from the 54th Infantry Regiment" - wasn't sure if this was "a company", or "A" company.
 * A generic company - no source identifies what it was called. I've tweaked the wording so this is clearer
 * "the remarkably formidable" - it wasn't clear to me who this quote from from.
 * Powell. I've tweaked the wording to avoid needing to quote him
 * "However, Samuel Eliot Morison judged" - wikilinked, but might be worth saying "However, historian Samuel..." just to make it clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that should be clear from the start of the para, which specifies that it's about the differing views of historians. I wanted to briefly summarize Morison's position, but this is surprisingly difficult (he wasn't really an official historian, but he wasn't a freelancer either as he was personally appointed by FDR to research and write a semi-official history of the USN in World War II and ended up with a staff of naval officers!). Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit: I've just added some context for Morison which should make things a clearer. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Comments/suggestions:
 * slight inconsistency: "en-route" and "en route";
 * Standardised to 'en route'
 * "so that convoys could safely pass through it en-route to further landings along New Guinea's north coast". Might sound better as: "so that convoys could safely pass through it en-route to conduct further landings along New Guinea's north coast";
 * Fixed
 * this sounds a little awkward to me: "this was the earliest date by which the air bases needed to support the landing that could be made operational" (specifically the "that");
 * It took me a while to write that sentence, and I haven't been happy with it. I've split it into two sentences which I think work better - what do you think?
 * not sure about the capitalisation here: "One landing was to capture Pitoe Island to the Peninsula's south" (specifically "Peninsula");
 * Fixed.
 * not sure whether this is an issue "Dreger Harbor" but then "Arawe Harbour". I understand that when it comes to places names, we don't adjust for English variation, but it does seem inconsistent. How do the sources handle it?;
 * They're mainly American, and use 'Harbor'. I've standardardised on this.
 * "148th Field Artillery battalion". Should this be "148th Field Artillery Battalion";
 * Yes, fixed
 * seems inconsistent: "U.S. Navy personnel" v. "US Navy's Beach Party Number 1";
 * Fixed
 * platoon, company, battalion etc. might need wikilinks where used for the first time as improper nouns;
 * Done
 * inconsistent date format: you mainly use ddmmyyyy, but there was is one example of mmddyyyy: "December 8";
 * Fixed
 * I think that there is something missing here: "The delays meant that landing area was". Perhaps try: "The delays meant that the landing area was...";
 * Fixed
 * "scorted by 56 A6M5 Zero fighters". I wonder if "Zero" should be presented in double quotation marks like "Val", "Betty" and "Sally". Not sure myself;
 * Probably, for the sake of consistency, so I've changed this. As I understand it, "Zero" became the standard Japanese-language name for these aircraft, so it's a bit ambiguous.
 * typo here, I think: "were able to complete them though improvising and making use". I think "though" should be "through";
 * Fixed (replaced with 'by')
 * seems inconsistent: "..."A" Company of the..." but then "...A Troop..." and "...B Troop..." etc. I wonder if they should all use the double quotes for the designators. Not sure, myself, sorry;
 * Standardised with quote marks for consistency.
 * typo here, I think: "his command being designed the Komori Force". Perhaps: "his command being designated the Komori Force...";
 * Fixed
 * inconsistent: "counter-attack" v. "counter attack";
 * All changed to 'counterattack' (which looks a bit odd to me as an Australian, but is the usage in the US Army and USMC official histories)
 * "patrol from the 2nd Battalion 5th Marines" (there should probably be a comma between "2nd Battalion" and "5th Marines");
 * Fixed. This was the way all our articles on Marine battalions are named though, but it's not in line with the usage in the sources consulted in this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the casualties for the Japanese are inconsistent. The prose says: "304 men killed and three captured", but the infobox says: "304 killed / 4 captured ";
 * in the Bibliography, should the location for the Krueger source be "Washington D.C." so that it is consistent with the Coakley source?
 * (very minor nitpick) in the Bibliography, sometimes you have "Washington D.C.", but then also "Washington DC";
 * the cite book template has a "|volume= |" parameter which you might consider using for some of the works in the Bibliography which are volumes of series;
 * there is a cite thesis which might be used for the Powell work;
 * the Advisor script reports that the ISBN for the Drea work might be incorrect. Could you please check this and adjust if necessary? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. All concerns addressed.Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)  Comments: I will list comments/suggestions below as a I work through the article, which may take me a little while.
 * The intro, as currently written, appears to be from the point of view of the Allies. For example, it mentions Operation Cartwheel right off the bat before even mentioning who the adversaries were in the battle.  In fact, Japan isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent point; I think that I've now fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "See also" with links to the New Guinea and Solomon Islands Campaigns should be placed at the beginning of the "Background" section? Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think that an explanation on why the Allies were after Rabaul in the first place should be in the opening paragraph of the background section? That it had roots in the Allied strategic plan put in place immediately after the Battle of Midway and loss of the Philippines? Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. I'll follow up on this and the above points I haven't responded to tomorrow, as well as any further comments (of course!). Thanks for your comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added an extra paragraph of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After seeing mention of Coastwatcher involvement, perhaps a check of Eric Feldt's book should be done to see if it contains any relevant information? If you don't have easy access to the book, I can check it.  I was fortunate enough to obtain an unabridged copy of it. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be great. I don't own anything specifically on the coastwatchers. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did find some useful, relevant info and will add it. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears evident that the Japanese air forces at Rabaul were severely over-tasked. From December 1943 to February 1944 they were conducting aerial counterattacks against Allied forces in New Guinea and Bougainville, as well as western New Britain.  This must have affected how much effort they were able to put forth against the Arawe landings.  Do any of the sources draw this conclusion?  Also, were there any Allied air raids against Rabaul during this time with the express purpose of disrupting Japanese air attacks on the Cape Gloucester and Arawe landings?  I don't know if bears mentioning in this article that IJN air forces were withdrawn from Rabaul to Truk near the end of February 1944, almost eliminating the air threat in the New Britain/Solomons theater. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just added lots of material on this topic - how does it look? The USAAF official history attributes the drop-off in attacks to the heavy casualties the Japanese air units suffered during this period. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Images all have Alt Text (no action required).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals a number of errors with refernce consolidation:
 * Powell (2006), p. 79 (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * Fixed
 * Morison (1958), p. 377 (Multiple references contain the same content)
 * Fixed
 * Powell_79 (Multiple references are using the same name)
 * The images used are all PD or licenced and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * "The Battle of Arawe was a battle during the New Britain Campaign of World War II between Allied and Imperial Japanese forces." Specifically "The Battle of Arawe was a battle..." Could this be better written as something like: "The Battle of Arawe occurred during the New Britain Campaign of World War II between Allied and Imperial Japanese forces..."?
 * That's much better; changed as suggested.
 * Although I know of no policy to the contrary - is there a requirement to list the co-ordinates in both the infobox and in the title (they both appear close together on my screen so it seems redundant). Suggestion only.
 * Fixed
 * Is there a requirement to list the rank of the commanders in the infobox as you have? AFAIK we didn't do that per the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict (which states "Ranks and position titles should be omitted.")
 * Fixed
 * This is a little repetitive: "...were in favor of securing Cape Gloucester to secure...", might it be reworded?
 * Fixed
 * "...and make contact with the marines once they landed...", should "marines" be capitalised?
 * Yes, done
 * "...to land at five minute intervals...", should "five minute" be hypthenated as an adjective?
 * Probably, done
 * "...and personnel from the squadron Headquarters...", should "squadron Headquarters" be capitalised (as a proper noun, being the name of force element)?
 * I don't think so as this isn't the sub-unit's formal title (which would have been something like 'Headquarters Company', which I've not used here as doing so is unnecessary and I think - possibly wrongly! - that this wording is clearer to people who are unfamiliar with military terminology)
 * "The force under Major Komori was ordered to make haste...", pretty sure this should just be "The force under Komori was ordered to make haste...", rm rank at second instance per WP:SURNAME.
 * Fixed
 * There may be a comma missing here: "On 6 January Cunningham requested further reinforcements, including tanks to tackle the Japanese defenses." Specifically should this be: "On 6 January Cunningham requested further reinforcements, including tanks, to tackle the Japanese defenses."
 * Fixed
 * Some inconsistent presentation of "US" (in at least one place you use "U.S.").
 * All changed to 'U.S.' per WP:MOS's guidance on what's most common in American English
 * "The marines secured the airfields...", caps here too? (as above)
 * "...when the marines advanced south east..." (as above)
 * "Major Komori fell behind his unit, and...", should be "Komori fell behind his unit, and..." (as above). Anotherclown (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks a lot for your careful review and comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Comment Support Great article! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On 22 September 1943, General MacArthur's General Headquarters (GHQ) directed General Walter Krueger's Alamo Force to secure western New Britain and the surrounding islands. First, you should probably drop the "General" before "MacArthur". (Hard because the primary documents call him that all the time.) Second, I would prefer "Lieutenant General" for Krueger.
 * Done
 * The second objective was to secure the straits between New Guinea and New Britain The Vitiaz Strait and Dampier Strait (Papua New Guinea). You should name them.
 * Done
 *  Major General George Kenney—commander of the Allied air forces in the South-West Pacific—opposed the landings Capitalise Allied Air Forces, as it was the name of the command. Also, Kenney was a lieutenant general.
 * Fixed
 * The Arawe landing was scheduled for 15 December as this was the earliest date by which the air bases needed to support the landing could be made operational. These were the ones around Nadzab. There was a delay opening the Lae-Nadzab Road.
 * Done
 * The 112th Cavalry Regiment was smaller and more lightly armed than U.S. infantry regiments as it had only two battalion-sized squadrons compared to the three battalions in infantry regiments. Not quite. An infantry company had 25 more men than a cavalry troop, but there were four companies to each infantry battalion but only three troops per cavalry squadron, making a cavalry squadron somewhat smaller than an infantry battalion.
 * Done
 *  transport ships HMAS Westralia and USS Carter Hall, Westralia was an assault transport (LSI) but Carter Hall was an LSD.
 * Done
 *  Aircraft flying from U.S. Navy aircraft carriers also attacked Rabaul on 5 and 11 November in support of the USMC landing at Bougainville. You need to define USMC.
 * Fixed
 *  Carter Hall launched her LVTs and Westralia her landing craft Well, yes, but a reader might think that the landing craft were her landing craft, but these had been left behind. The landing craft were from the 592nd EBSR.
 * Tweaked
 * Thanks a lot for your review, as well as your earlier comments on this article. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.