Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Labuan


 * 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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Labuan

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

The battle of Labuan was a fairly one-sided engagement fought between a heavily-supported Australian Army brigade and a weak Japanese battalion on an island off the coast of Borneo in June 1945. The engagement was one of two battles which took place during the Australian-led invasion of the Borneo Bay region, which is now generally regarded as a less-than-necessary operation.

I have drawn on a wide range of sources in developing this article, and it passed a GA nomination in January. It has since been expanded and copy-edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the A-class criteria. I'm also considering further developing the article to FA status, so any comments in that direction would be appreciated.

I should note that I have a family connection with the events of this battle: my granddad was a member of the 2/43rd Battalion during its operations on Labuan and the eastern shore of Brunei Bay, though it saw relatively little fighting in this particular engagement. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "subsequently" (throughout): replace by soon, later, later on, or consequently, depending on the meaning.
 * I've thinned it out a bit Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Where it appears, I can't tell whether you mean "soon", "later", or (in at least one case) "consequently". All three are common meanings in articles that show up at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "would subsequently assault Balikpapan on 1 July": was to assault Balikpapan on 1 July
 * "The 24th Brigade Group was carried by the Australian landing ships infantry HMAS Manoora and Westralia, as well as ten Landing Ship, Tank, five landing Craft Infantry, seven Landing Ship Medium and one landing ship dock from the United States Navy. A total of 38 LCVPs and 26 Landing Craft Mechanized were": Ugh. Unparsable for anyone who doesn't know the jargon.
 * Not sure that there's a better way of presenting it though? - my sources used similar formulations. The links to the different ship types should help here. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sources were written with a readership in mind that knows military jargon. How will the typical reader be able to make sense of "ten Landing Ship, Tank, five landing Craft Infantry"? How about "ten landing craft for tanks, five for infantry", etc.? - Dank (push to talk)
 * That seems to be simplifying things too much IMO, and would introduce inaccuracies given that the ships didn't necessarily carry these loads (eg, elements of the infantry battalions were transported in LSTs). While there's doubtlessly scope for improvement, similar formulations in the Battle of Arawe and Battle of Morotai articles were judged FA-worthy prose ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Searching for "landing craft" in Battle of Arawe, I get three hits: "five Landing Craft Tank (LCT) and 14 Landing Craft Medium (LCM)" and "two LCVPs (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel)". In all 3 cases, you gave the reader consistent capitalization, acronyms, and links so they could find out what these things were. Without those visual clues, readers who don't know the jargon have no way of guessing that, in this case, an X Y (both nouns) is a kind of X rather than a kind of Y. (How likely is it that "post office box" would mean a kind of post office rather than a kind of box, or that "garage door" would mean a kind of garage?) - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dank - I've standardised on the acronyms for the smaller craft and LSTs (which is what the sources generally use). Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some reviewers may not be on board with your solution, but I like it and I'll be happy to say so at FAC ... the full names aren't enlightening, they're confusing. (On top of the big grammar problem, some of these things weren't carrying what the name suggests, as you say, and "landing ship dock" reverses the grammar of all the other landing ships ... it's actually a dock.) Three suggestions for getting this to fly at FAC: 1. If you're going with acronyms for these things, do it consistently ... always use acronyms, links, and consistent capitalization. I made those edits. 2. Preface it with "a variety of landing ships" if you've got a bunch of them listed; I made that edit too. 3. If reviewers still complain, be ready to add a footnote that explains the acronyms, for readers who don't want to click on the links.
 * Thanks for that Dank. I can also argue that the acronyms are the WP:COMMONNAME for the ship types. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with that too, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "6.51 am" (throughout): See first sentence of WP:MOSTIME.
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "became bogged": bogged down?
 * Given this is referring to a single tank getting stuck in mud, "became bogged" seems better: "bogged down" in this kind of context is usually used to describe a military force which can't meet an objective. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but "bog" (without "down") isn't listed in Cambridge Dicts, Oxford Dicts, or AHD. How about "stuck in the mud"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review and edits Dank Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * No issues with external links (no action req'd).
 * A couple of the images appear to lack alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No duplicate links (no action req'd).
 * Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
 * Captions mostly look fine - one minor question:
 * "An infantry company's radio team on 26 June" - is "radio team" correct terminology for the period? I'd have called them signalers.
 * Good point: the AWM database calls it a "signalling position", and I've tweaked it accordingly Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Some difference in the presentation of ship types: "Landing Ship, Tank,", "landing Craft Infantry", "Landing Ship Medium" and "landing ship dock". Is this difference correct or should they all be capitalized etc?
 * Fixed per Dank's comments Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "On 3 January 1942, the island was captured by unopposed Japanese forces..." or "On 3 January 1942, the island was captured unopposed by Japanese forces..." (very minor nitpick I agree)
 * Two sentences starting the same way one after the other here: "The pre-invasion air attacks on north Borneo began in late May. The...", consider instead: "Pre-invasion air attacks on north Borneo began in late May. The..." (suggestion only)
 * Fixed - thanks for this suggestion Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lieutenant Colonel Norman → Norman per WP:SURNAME.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments -- Hi Nick, for now I just looked over the RAAF-related stuff, if I get a chance to do a full review then I will: Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how Morison puts it (Long doesn't seem to say) but Bostock was head of RAAF Command, of which First TAF was a major component -- he didn't command First TAF directly.
 * Whoops. Morison calls him the overall commander of the air support for the Borneo operation (or words to that effect). Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you show an image of a No. 1 Sqn Mossie, you might mention in the main text that No. 86 Wing comprised Nos. 1 and 93 Sqns (and can leave the citation as is, Odgers mentions them).
 * I've added that detail, as well as noting that the wing arrived a month later than planned Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review Ian Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No prob. Since it now has three supports, incl. image check, I won't delay promotion to conduct a full review, I'm sure it'll be fine for A-Class -- if you take the FAC I'll try to have closer look there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: looks good to me, although perhaps in the strength field in the infobox, you could provide something indicative of the size of the Allied force (if the exact figures aren't known), e.g. "One infantry brigade with supporting blah blah". Or something similar. Not a warstoper, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea - thanks. No sources, including the 24th Brigade's post-operational report, give a strength for the allied force. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2015 (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. 