Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Goodenough Island


 * 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.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Goodenough Island

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Following on the Battle of Milne Bay, is the Battle of Goodenough Island. Not really a battle, though, as only battalion sized units were involved; had I created the article it probably would have been "Landing on Goodenough Island". I'm not much of a "muddy boots" historian either, so this article lacks the touch that Rupert gave the Battle of Milne Bay. Because the Japanese force was not annihilated, there are reasonable Japanese sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: I reviewed this for GA and intend to do a full ACR on it shortly, but I want to let someone else give it a going over first so that it can have a different set of eyes on it. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions at this stage:
 * is there a source for the operation being called "Drake"? I haven't yet been able to confirm this. I have found a source for "Drake Force", which might need to be worked in as currently the reference at note 16 (McCarthy 1959, p. 347) doesn't mention that the force was called Drake Force ;
 * It's also in Graeme-Evans and the war diaries. What I believe - but cannot yet prove - is that Drake was actually the codename for Goodenough Island itself. It was changed to Amoeba in 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the article possibly could be called the "Landing on Goodenough Island" as you suggest, as that is how it is presented in the source I link above. I'm not fussed either way, though;
 * Me neither. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that constructs such as "Galaiwau Bay-Kilia Mission", generally take an endash in place of the hyphen per the MOS, but I'm uncertain about whether such constructs in quotes should be changed to meet the MOS, so currently I've left them alone;
 * Will use the ndash. I think Dank said that quotations have to be reformatted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * in the Aftermath, "The 1st Battalion, 91st Engineer General Service Regiment was assigned" - I wonder if this unit should be identified as a US Army unit and also whether there is a link that could be added for it;
 * Just for you, I have created a short article on the 91st Engineer General Service Regiment. Now somebody needs to assess it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, nice work. I've assessed it as a C-class article as the post-World War II service probably needs a bit more detail for B-class. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * currently the Japanese casualties listed in the article are only Allied estimates, are there any Japanese sources that provide their own estimates of said casualties? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always hit or miss with Japanese sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have gone over the article again this afternoon and I am happy that the article meets A-class standards. I have the comments for the sake of the review:
 * the article is well referenced using a format that is consistent throughout the article;
 * the article is comprehensive, accurate, neutral and focused;
 * the article is well structured and is written in concise English (caveat: I copy edited the article during my GAN review, so hopefully a subsequent reviewer will confirm prose);
 * the article contains suitable supporting materials and the images are all appropriately licenced;
 * while doing my review at GAN, I did not find any copyright violations (I spot checked the article's print sources and did internet searches) and I have no reason to suspect that any have crept in since then. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments I've made a small number of edits to this article and considered developing it a while ago, but I think that I'm uninvolved enough to review it. As normal for Hawkeye's work, this is a really good article which is even-handed and goes into an appropriate level of detail; nice work. My comments are: Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "were evacuated from the island and withdrawn to Fergusson Island " - this could be simplified with "were evacuated to Fergusson Island"
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Military situation section seems miss-placed, as it only describes the situation after the Prelude section. This section also may not be necessary given that the occupation of Goodenough Island was a minor affair.
 * Moved it down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Japanese marines" - I'm pretty sure that SNLF troops aren't normally called 'marines' (as they had no real ability to make opposed amphibious landings and were primarily defensive in nature).
 * That was the US Marines too until the 1940s. Perhaps we need someone who knows some Japanese... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, SNLF troops are normally called 'naval infantry' or similar, and 'marines' is regarded as incorrect (for instance, see page 7 of this book on Google books as well as this section of a book by USMC Pacific War order of battle specialist Gordon Rottman). I'm not 100% sure what the most common usage is though. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed references to "marines". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we know how the Americans were withdrawn from the island?
 * No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "C Company, 2/10th Infantry Battalion, under the command of Captain J. Brocksopp, was designated to land on Normanby Island" - I think that 'directed' or 'ordered' or similar would work better than 'designated'
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "and experiencing no opposition " - change to active voice (eg, 'encountered no opposition')
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * Is a book published by the 12th Battalion Association a reliable source on Japanese submarine operations?
 * The author sources to a translation of the relevant Japanese official history, which I do not have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have enough information to mark-up the map with the movements of the Australian and Japanese forces? (I remember checking the 2/12th Infantry Battalion's war diary for a map showing this when I was considering developing the article, but couldn't find one)
 * Maybe, but it would be beyond my technical ability to carry out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "were then sent south and were engaged by Japanese forces" - the two 'were's are repetitive
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "He launched an attack on Kilia at 09:10 hours" - is this Arnold or Gatewood?
 * Arnold. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could note in the final section that No. 79 Squadron RAAF arrived on the island in June 1943
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support My comments have now all been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Images have Alt Text (no action required).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * The images used are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * Minor repetition in language in the lead: "...and after a short but heavy fight..." and "After the battle, Goodenough Island was developed..." Consider something like "Following' the battle, Goodenough Island was developed..." (suggestion only)
 * Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * This construction seems a little redundant: "the Australian 2/12th Infantry Battalion, a Second Australian Imperial Force unit..." Perhaps just "the 2/12th Infantry Battalion, a Second Australian Imperial Force unit..."? (suggestion only)
 * Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * Some inconsistency, in places "machine-gun" and in others "machine guns" (minor nitpick).
 * Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
 * Other than these very minor points this article is of a high standard and I'm confident it meets the A class criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Images: File:Goodenough Island.jpeg needs more information so as to verify it as a work of the US federal government.
 * Also all images need a United States copyright tag - they just have to. I've done some sleuthing, and it comes down to whether Australian copyright laws have changed or not. Template:PD-URAA is perfect if they haven't, insofar as this means that they were already in the public domain by 1 January 1996. If you check that out a bit, then that should cover you. I'm making this a technical oppose because it has to be dealt with, and you've got some support above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea what you are talking about. All images are appropriately tagged. File:Goodenough Island.jpeg has a US Army tag. You looked in the book cited as the source verified it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two separate issues. I admit when I looked at File:Goodenough Island.jpeg I overlooked the fact that the author line feeds into the source line, but a publisher or that sort of information would be useful.
 * The second issues affects files such as File:Australian soldiers with Japanese flag captured at Goodenough Island.jpg. All files on Wikimedia Commons must be both in the public domain in their country of origin (here Australia) and the United States. Files like that one do not state their copyright position in the United States – a file may still be copyright there when it isn't in Australia because the United States does not apply the rule of the shorter term. The template "Template:PD-URAA" to which I refer, which only exists on Commons, may be appropriate: all files which were public domain in their source country (Australia) on 1 January 1996 are in the public domain in the United States as well.
 * If these were privately taken photographs, it seems to me that the files concerned are in the public domain in Australia by virtue of case B of the Australian licence template, "Photographs (except A): taken prior to 1 January 1955". If this was a valid statement of the law on 1 January 1996, then "Template:PD-URAA" is appropriate. So the question then is when this blanket statement came into existence. The extant copyright law in this area appears to be from 1994, which is good.
 * If they are works of any of Australia's governments, then the appropriate rule is year made + 50 years, which would be fine. That would have lapsed in 1992 or so, before the 1996 date.
 * If you can say if they are a work of a private individual or the government I can help follow through. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've tweaked the map image to make its publisher clearer. Could you please check that you are happy with this change? Regarding the AWM images, I don't think its going to be possible to provide the information that you are asking for. While the AWM includes authors where possible, they do not always do so and the authors' status as an either an official photographer or private photographer doesn't appear to be spelt out. My own belief is that Cliff Bottomley was an official photographer as he doesn't appear to have been in the military at the time (his name doesn't appear on the WW2 nominal roll that I can find), and his presence in a combat zone would be impossible unless he was one of the two, I would assume. I believe that John Thomas Harrison was in the RAAF:, and William H. Robinson was too, serving as a photographer: . These answers are not definitive, though. Frankly, I really cannot see how URAA applies practically here. The source of the images clearly states they are in the public domain. How would the US government seek to enforce this copyright, and who would benefit from them doing so? The AWM (which is run by the Australian Government) is making these images, which it holds, freely available. By this reasoning, all AWM Korean War images - which are PD in Australia for having been taken prior to 1955, or over 50 years if owned by the government - are not PD in the US and shouldn't be used. As such, should this image be deleted: File:Reg Saunders leading his company in Korea.jpg? I admit I'm not a copyright expert, but this really doesn't seem to be common sense. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As some comments on File:Australian soldiers with Japanese flag captured at Goodenough Island.jpg:
 * The AWM has - very helpfully - accurately labeled the copyright status of all the images on its online database. This one's status is "Copyright expired - public domain".
 * To add to AustralianRupert's comments above, the Department of Information also posted official photographers to the war zones as part of its (somewhat contradictory) efforts to generate propaganda and record images for later use by the official historians - these photographers were government employees, but not necessarily members of the military, and their photographs would have been Commonwealth Government property upon creation.
 * In regards to this specific photo, Clifford Bottomley was engaged by the Department of Information as an official war photographer in 1940 and appears to have severed in the same capacity in the Army at various points in the war. His World War II-era personal file is also available online in via the National Archives of Australia (file B4717). See also this record in the New South Wales State Library.
 * More generally, there have been lots of discussions of the copyright status of images in the AWM's database over the years, and the consensus has always been that the WW2-era images are PD if the AWM says that they are (which it doesn't always do), and these images have been given the thumbs up in lots of FACs. I think that the Korean War-era photos are also generally OK. While there are a small number of errors in the AWM's database, my experience has been that the curators who entered the photos' copyright status knew what they were doing and can be assumed to have tagged the image correctly. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (undent - feel free to move this to talk). I'm confident that pre-1945/6 works are in the public domain, and I've added a tag to File:Australian soldiers with Japanese flag captured at Goodenough Island.jpg to this effect, which can be replicated. I had real trouble tracking down why pre-1955 photographs are in the public domain, so I've concluded that rather than being placed in the public domain, they were never properly covered by it.
 * Unfortunately the Korean War ones will need more thought. If they weren't in the public domain in the US on 1 January 1996, they remain in copyright (by the original copyright holder) by that measure. Might be worth asking at WP:MCQ, or, if this is a lot of files, MDennis/MRG directly.
 * On some specific points, the AWM people are working entirely within Australian law, so they're only concerned with Australian copyright. I've no doubt these works are in the public domain in Australia, that's clear enough. Also if this arrangement seems odd, then yes, it is, but we have to play by the rules.
 * Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been through all this before. See Template talk:PD-Australia. The 1955 date comes from the adoption of the Berne Convention as a result of the US-Australia FTA in 2005. The treaty specifies that restoration of copyright will not occur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm quite on the same page here. The Berne Convention, as I understand it, can only increase and not remove protection, which is what our article says for the agreement: "Australia agreed to extend its copyright expiration period from 50 to 70 years after the author’s death". I'm not arguing, I agree that the images are in the public domain in Australia, they haven't been restored into copyright. It's the files' status within the US. Template talk:PD-Australia doesn't seemed to have reached a conclusion, but the helpful passage, which is very similar to that above: is
 * Please read circulars 38b and 15a about the US laws 38a relates to restoration of rights to works where the work is protected in its source country. 15a then states that "The Act provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason.". Restoration of copyright is only for the term of copyright in the source country it doesnt extend copyrights beyond that. Gnangarra 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it is public domain in Australia, does not make it public domain in other countries. [5] (page 6) says: "Can I use a work that is still in copyright overseas, if copyright has expired here?.. If copyright in a photo has expired in Australia because it was taken, say, in 1926 or 1953, then you may reproduce it in a book in Australia. If, however, you wanted to print or distribute the book overseas, you would need to check that copyright in the photograph has expired in each country where the book is to be printed or distributed." --Astrokey44 09:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote which Gnagarra gives above applies to the loss of U.S. copyright, not to the loss of source country copyright. The assertion that "once an image is Public Domain then that is applied worldwide" is, unfortunately, untrue. Physchim62 (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I say, I'm confident that pre-1945 works can be satisfactorily dealt with, which I think is all of those relevant to this review. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say I share Hawkeye's frustration that this issue is being brough up yet again. The status of Second World War (and also Korean War) images held by the AWM and tagged by it as public domain has been discussed at length, and has been tested on a number of occasions in deletion debates. In each of the occasions that I am aware of the images were kept and moved to Commons. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you link me to the past discussions? I don't like playing devil's advocate, but I feel I'm forced to a bit. I'll go ahead and duplicate my explanation to the other images on the article for pre-1946 if you would like, such that there might be a more appropriate venue for 1946-55 images if it hasn't been previously resolved – which from what you say sounds unlikely. The link above was unresolved. The number one rule on Commons is that the US and country of origin licences have to be given, and the files mentioned above didn't – it's been finding out under what rule they're PD in the US that I don't understand, hopefully previous discussions can elucidate that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A number of the discussions can be found here - and . Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (undent) I'm a bit confused as to what proposal moving on is favoured. The links provided (thanks) paint a confusing picture of what rationale these images are being used. (I can justify this viewpoint, but I didn't want to make this reply too long.) Accordingly, I was going to move to licence all the contentious images in the article as I mentioned above, that is, with a rationale that provides for all pre-1946 files without prejudice to any further discussions about files in the 1946–55 period. That would have cleared this ACR to the satisfaction of all concerned, I had presumed, and given me time to consider, prepare and possibly launch a test case for the other files. However, Hawkeye has reverted my proposed licensing for the image file where I used it as an example, which leaves me unclear as to what my remaining options are and which are favoured. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PD-URAA is deprecated on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is indeed. There (here, I made use of PD-1996, which I believe is one of two replacing it - please could you elaborate your point further? I know I referred to PD-URAA, but the placement is a mere split of that template. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another bad template. It says that government photographs have to be 50 years old in 1996 to fall into the public domain. That is rubbish. When the government extended the lifetime of copyright from 50 to 70 years in 2005, it chose not to do so for government owned photographs. So all government photographs from 1961 or earlier are in the public domain. It is privately owned photographs from 1956 that have to wait until 2026, when the clock starts ticking again. Why are we arguing about this here? It should be taken elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You#re absolutely correct – these images are indeed out of copyright in Australia. The above template attempts to show that they are also in the public domain in the United States, which is the other requirement for files hosted on Commons (or a suitable other licence). There are other ways, too, in which the files might be PD in the US, but I really did think that one looked promising. This discussion still involves images in the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hawkeye: this discussion belongs elsewhere given that the images in this article have been established to be OK. Though as noted above, this has been discussed multiple times in the past. WT:AUSTRALIA is probably a good venue for the discussion; Australia seems to punch above its weight in producing editors who know the ins and outs of copyright law! Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (undent): my feeling is that it's got to come back here, that discretion can't allow an ACR to pass when its images are incorrectly licensed (they do not state, right or wrong, their US copyright status). I would like HawkEye to better explain his opposition to my previous suggestion, as that could get past this problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These images are Commons files, perhaps you might take this discussion there? Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall in due course, except that I can in all honesty drop my objection here until such matters are resolved, and thus I felt it might in the interests of the nominator and/or others to resolve it here for the files in the article. Any further discussion elsewhere is almost certainly going to be long, and if this is a test for it, confused and dazing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this discussion is going to move forward then. Three of the four participants in this ACR have all expressed opinions that are contrary to that which you have advanced, so unless some other editor is going to become involved we seem to be at an impasse. The issues you raise do not seem to be clearly defined, and if, as you suggest, they require a test case then they don't seem to be based on policy either. ACR is about improving the standard of our articles, not arguing about esoteric matters of law that may or may not be an issue at all. Personally I'm struggling hard not to view your stand on this matter to be anything other than obstructionalist. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the moment my proposal was shot down by HawkEye, who I'm hoping will explain his objection. What is your objection, if any, to the my proposed licence [here? Grandiose ([[User:Grandiose|me]], talk, contribs) 12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This really isn't the right place to discuss this. AWM images using these tags have been given the thumbs up as part of image checks in dozens of FA reviews, so there seems to be no reason to think that there's a problem. Any discussion of the ins and outs of the licensing should take place on an appropriate central noticeboard; which can happen in parallel to this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Created here. You can archive this discussion if you would like to clear some space, but my opposition remains until this issue has been resolved. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments on that thread have dried up, with a general position (some posters weren't quite clear) that pre-1946 files should be licensed with PD-1996 and PD-Australia. I suggest this is implemented. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please could I have an update on whether the nominator or others are likely to implement the accepted proposal for the files concerned (in the context of the discussion on Commons, pre-1946 files) or if not on which grounds they do not feel that a PD-1996 tag would be appropriate. The clear focus on Commons is now a constructive resolution of post-1946 files. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added the PD-1996 tag to the AWM images; however, I do not necessarily hold the opinion that this tag is even necessary. I have not been convinced that URAA could be applied to these images or any others like them. That is just my opinion, though, and obviously it is not a universal one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 12 May 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.