Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Isurava


 * 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.

Article promoted by Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Isurava

 * Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

One of the defensive battles fought by the Australians during the initial stages of the Kokoda Track campaign, the Battle of Isurava forms a key part of the narrative of the Australian involvement in the New Guinea campaign. Until recently, our coverage of the campaign was limited to just the overarching Kokoda Track campaign article; however, I have been working to create articles on the individual battles themselves, with this being the last one I have written (the others are all B class, although I hope maybe to take them to GA and beyond later). I have recently expanded this article from a redirect and have taken it to GA status. I would like to improve it further through the A-class review process also. Thank you to for his insightful comments during the GA review and to  for their copy editing and suggestions after the fact, and of course to all those who stop by to help during the review. COI disclaimer: my grandfather fought during the Kokoda Track campaign, but not at Isurava (he was at Oivi-Gorari with the 2/3rd Infantry Battalion). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't like this one much.
 * Fair enough. Blunt, but insightful as always. Anyway, thanks for looking. These are my changes: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * US engineer and service units began arriving to conduct vital airfield and port development work, to help ease the supply situation.[19] Nevertheless, the supply situation – exacerbated by poor staff work and developing aerial supply techniques – continued to limit the ability of the Allies to concentrate troops forward throughout much of the campaign. Can we re-phrase this to remove the repetition of "the supply situation" and make it clearer what is meant by "developing aerial supply techniques"? A much clearer statement of "the supply situation" would help.
 * Adjusted a bit, but happy to adjust further if you feel it necessary. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * However, the size of the Japanese force and the extent of their own supply problems became apparent to the Australian high command. But not to the reader, because the infobox (and article) says that the Japanese strength was 3,000-5,000. The latter figure has been debunked. The Allied command knew that at a 1:1 ratio, Potts would not be able to attack, but should have had enough strength to defend. But Williams has established lower figures than the article: 2,130 Japanese vs 2,292 Australians (p. 69)
 * Good point, added this figure now, and tried to clarify for the reader what was becoming apparent, although the sentence is probably a bit cumbersome now. I wonder, would this work: "These orders were changed, though, as intelligence indicated that the force facing Potts was equal in size, if not greater."? (It seems they at least believed the force was greater at the time?) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * re-envigorate should be "re-invigorate"
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For the Australians to be able to mount a counter-attack, it was vital that they build up a stockpile of supplies in order to reduce the burden placed on the native carrier system. Obviously, that would not reduce the burden on the native carrier system, but increase it. Try again.
 * Agreed, poor phrasing. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An order to assume defensive operations and to withdraw towards Kokoda was eventually given to Horii, after further defeats around Guadalcanal combined with supply difficulties. This is the first mention of Guadalcanal, so link. And what supply difficulties?
 * Had a go at it, hunger mainly. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In crossing the Kumusi, they were to loose most of their artillery "lose"
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In this regard, while Potts' handling of the withdrawal, despite his vilification and subsequent sacking by General Thomas Blamey, commander of the Australian Military Forces, has tended to be viewed relatively uncritically. Firstly, this does not make grammatical sense, as it has an opening phrase but no closing one. Secondly, it is not supported by the source. Thirdly, it is wrong. Potts was relieved by Rowell before Blamey arrived, but after talking to Potts and Blamey in Port Moresby 13 September, Rowell allowed Potts to return to command of the 21st Brigade, then resting at Port Moresby. After Herring took over from Rowell, Herring resolved to replace Potts with Ivan Dougherty. Herring knew Dougherty well from his time in Darwin, but was unfamiliar with, and rightfully concerned, about Potts. He arranged with Blamey for Dougherty and Potts to exchange posts (since Darwin was not part of Herring's command).
 * Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Adjusted the sentence, as you are right it was terrible and was trying to say too much. The source (Williams pp. 82-83) says this: "There is little criticism of Potts' handling of Isurava in postwar accounts...", so I've tried to clarify that. Decided not to mention Potts' replacement as it comes later in the narrative anyway and is probably just best dealt with in the later battle articles. Please let me know if you think it needs further work. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I have some more:
 * While elements of this narrative continue to resonant should be "resonate"
 * Done, I'm wondering if I was drunk when I wrote this... AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * An order to assume defensive operations and to withdraw towards Kokoda was eventually given to Horii, after a further defeat around Guadalcanal. No, the order was given on 28 August, while the fighting at Isurava was ongoing. On 16 August, before the battle began, the attack on Port Moresby had been called off in response to the landing on Guadalcanal on 7 August, and Horii had been order to position his force to threaten Port Moresby. The resources needed to capture Moresby were diverted to Guadalcanal in September and October. (Historians are very sensitive to dates.) I would like to see all of this in the strategic situation section.
 * Added another paragraph to the Strategic situation section and mentioned the order elsewhere. Tried to clarify the difference between the 28 August and 8 September orders. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * as well as limited shipping Actually, the problem was not limited shipping, but limited port capacity. Port Moresby had only one deep water wharf, which could only handle one ship at a time. In October the US Army built a new wharf that raised the port capacity from 1,400 to 4,000 deadweight tons per diem. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Adjusted. Keogh says "shipping resources", but I just went with port facilities per your suggestion. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He goes on to say: "Work was put in hand to develop the port facilities at Moresby". Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments and time, I've made the following further edits: Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, that will do.
 * Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "subsequently": The word is inherently ambiguous, as used on Wikipedia: it can mean then, soon, later, consequently, not at all consequently, or whatever else the writer wants it to mean. See if you can get by without this word. (Oddly, "subsequent" doesn't seem to have the same flaws, at least in practice.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "advanced elements": potentially some ambiguity there.
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan, I had a go at fixing those issues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Comments - only a few minor points as I reviewed previously at GA:
 * I wonder if Port Moresby's strategic importance to the campaign should be explained in brief, i.e. why were the Japanese trying to capture it / what effect was its loss perceived to have on Australian's strategic position? (suggestion only).
 * Repetitive wording here: "...as the terrain lowers towards sea level, the terrain..." ("the terrain x 2 in close proximity).
 * "Following the failure of a seaborne assault on the strategically important town of Port Moresby resulting from the Battle of the Coral Sea in May 1942 and further losses during the Battle of Midway, it was planned to capture the town via an overland advance across the Owen Stanley Range along the Kokoda Track." By whom?
 * Prose is repetitive here: "...a large number of troops, and a number of artillery pieces..." ("number" x 2 in close proximity), perhaps reword?
 * A bit repetitive here too: "...The Australians were also experiencing their own supply problems. For the Australians..." ("the Australians"). Perhaps consider changing to something like: "The Australians were also experiencing their own supply problems. For them..."?
 * Is there a missing word here: "Casualties during the fighting around have been variously reported..."? (after "around")
 * "The partially successful withdrawal of Maroubra Force..." Is "partially" an accurate description, or would "mostly" be better?
 * I made a few edits as part of a second read-through, AR pls review and amend any that are not helpful.
 * They look good to me, thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for taking a look. I think I've fixed all of these issues. These are my changes: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added my support now as those changes look fine to me. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.