Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kaiapit


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 as promoted by Woody (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kaiapit
This article - currently B-class - was a DYK a year ago. It's not very big - but then neither was the battle... Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * The lead needs to be expanded to a good two or three paragraphs.
 * ✅ Let me know if there is anything more that needs to be said in the introduction.


 * An endash (–) is required between date ranges in the article and page ranges used in citations.


 * Throughout the article, Gordon King is referred to as a captain until the end of the "Results of the Battle" section when he is referred to as a major. This needs to be clarified.
 * ✅ Changed to captain.


 * Could further information be placed in the "War Crimes" section? With one sentence I don't think it is worth mentioning at all. Is it known why they were bayoneted? What happened to the killers? Were they discovered, prosocuted, etc?
 * Not as far as I know... However I have expanded the section to include the Webb report. Let me know if you still feel that it should be deleted.
 * Much better. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Three full paragraphs in this article are completely without a reference/citation, and need to have them.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I added the recommendation card for King's DSO as a ref as the London Gazette doesn't exactly say it was for the Kaiapit action, while the card does. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all. That's great! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments ✅ ✅ I have consolidated some sections. There is a bit of work to be done before I am willing to support, but it should be solvable! JonCatalán(Talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ✅ At the time it was written another editor suggested the use of the Template:Harvard citation no brackets
 * 1) I think the most important thing blocking the article's promotion, at this time, is the short lead.  As a guideline, the lead should have something from each section of the article.
 * 1) In my opinion, the short sections make the text choppy (you can tell as I prefer longer subsections in my own article).  I think it makes the article look less professional.  For example, I believe that geography and reconnaissance are too short (a single short paragraph a piece) to warrant their own subsections.  There must be a more aesthetic alternative.
 * 1) I fixed the endashes for page ranges for you.  In the future, same cites should be bunched together by naming references.  I'll do it for your to give you an example.
 * Actually, I can't do the ref naming for you, because you use a reference template I've never seen before. I have always used.

JonCatalán(Talk) 16:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support JonCatalán(Talk) 06:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Just a couple issues:
 * "Unaware that a much larger Japanese force was also headed for Kaiapit." Fragment.


 * "The paper was taken from him and he was shot when he tried to escape.<[21]" What's with the less than? Typo?
 * ✅ It was a typo
 * The two images at the beginning of the aftermath section sandwich for me.
 * ❌ I don't know how to correct those sorts of problems. :( (Looks good on my screen/browser.) Maybe another, more experienced, editor can help...
 * "He rejected the existing strip and oversaw the preparation of a new one on better ground new Mission Hill." Eh?
 * ✅ Re-phrased.
 * However, besides those it looks good, please fix them and it will be ready for A-class. – Joe Nu  tter  00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I switched around the images. The bunching of the text should be solved. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This is another great article which meets the A-class criteria. I do have some comments though:
 * 'landing at Nadzab and capture of Lae' don't need to be linked again in the 'situation' section given that they're linked in the lead. Likewise, '2/6th Independent Company' doesn't need to be linked in the 'prelude' section.


 * I really like the 'Geography' section - this is a great idea and should probably be included in more articles
 * I don't think that the names of aircraft should be italicised, but may be wrong


 * "Meanwhile, Yonekura had reached Kaiapit after an exhausting night march." it might be clearer to say 'Yonekura and his men' here

Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Good, complete article on the battle which appears to meet all MoS and other A-class criteria. Cla68 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.