Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Milne Bay


 * 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 -- Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Milne Bay

 * Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk); AustralianRupert (talk)

Result of a cooperative effort last year to bring this article up to scratch. I think it is now A-worthy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * The images used are all PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * Tense mismatch here I think: "The coastal area is flat and was suitable for airstrips...", consider "The coastal area is flat and suitable for airstrips..."
 * "...with attacks against the British and Commonwealth forces in the Battle of Hong Kong and Malayan campaign...", consider instead "...with attacks against British and Commonwealth forces in the Battle of Hong Kong and Malayan campaign..."
 * "...which was caught at anchor in the Pearl Harbor...", or should it be "... in Pearl Harbor..."?
 * "Following this, they had advanced rapidly south...", perhaps instead: "Following this, they had rapidly advanced south..." (suggestion only)
 * Typo here: "To the west, he authorised the construction of an airbase was at Merauke in...", specifically "airbase was at Merauke".
 * Typo and wording here: "...not be subject to vagaries of the weather and air turbulence other the mountains...", consider instead "...not be subject to the vagaries of weather and air turbulence over the mountains..."
 * "...as a better alternative site...", perhaps consider: "...as a more suitable alternative site.." (suggestion only)
 * "Three Kittyhawk aircraft of No. 76 Squadron RAAF landed on the airstrip on 22 July. Kittyhawks from No. 76 Squadron and No. 75 Squadron RAAF arrived on 25 July.", consider instead "Three Kittyhawk aircraft of No. 76 Squadron RAAF landed on the airstrip on 22 July while further Kittyhawks from No. 76 Squadron and No. 75 Squadron RAAF arrived on 25 July."
 * This is awkward to me: "They found that only 4,950 by 80 feet (1,510 by 24 m) of the 6,000-by-100-foot (1,800 by 30 m) runway was covered with Marsden Matting, and there was frequently water over the runway...", consider instead "They found that only 4,950 by 80 feet (1,510 by 24 m) of the 6,000-by-100-foot (1,800 by 30 m) runway was covered with Marsden Matting, and was frequently covered in water..."
 * "One Kittyhawk was destroyed on the ground, and a Kittyhawk from No. 76 Squadron shot down the dive bomber...", consider perhaps "One Kittyhawk was destroyed on the ground, while a Kittyhawk from No. 76 Squadron shot down the dive bomber."
 * "...it contained many 30 to 35 year old soldiers...", as an adjective 35 year old should probably be hypthenated.
 * Inconsistent spelling with "picket" and "picquet".
 * Is there a missing word here: "a minor attack upon Japanese forward positions which were located...", consider perhaps "a minor attack upon the Japanese forward positions which were located..."
 * This seems a little awkward to me: "Weary from the day's fighting, though, they withdrew to the west of the mission, to Motieau." As a suggestion consider: "Weary from the day's fighting though, they withdrew to Motieau, west of the mission."
 * "Moreover, while the Australians had no knowledge of the enemy's strength or intention...", consider perhaps "Moreover, while the Australians had no knowledge of the strength or intentions of the Japanese..."
 * Punctuation seems a little off here: "Meanwhile, the Japanese also sought to reconfigure their forces and Mikawa, decided to reinforce the forces that were already ashore." Consider "Meanwhile, the Japanese also sought to reconfigure their forces and Mikawa decided to reinforce the forces that were already ashore."
 * "...reaching Sanderson's Bay, before decided to set up their night location...", consider instead "...reaching Sanderson's Bay, before deciding to set up their night location."
 * "...but without causing any casualties in the defenders...", perhaps "...but without causing any casualties amoung the defenders..."
 * "...and provide anti-shipping missions...", perhaps "...and undertake anti-shipping missions..." or something similar.
 * Missing word/s here: "In 1944 this was to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, which had been set up by the Allies following the Moscow Declaration." Was what to the UN War Crimes Commission?
 * Overall, this is a very good article IMO. Just a few points to deal with or discuss, otherwise I will be glad to support. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, I think I've fixed all of these now. Thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with comments:
 * Looks good to me, and I thought the maps were particularly nice.
 * Only one minor point: "the coastal plain is "virtually impassable"" - it wasn't clear in the text who the quote is from. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation points to Keogh, p. 185: "In wet weather the flats become virtually impassable quagmires of glutinous mud". It should have been clear, but placed an duplicate reference after the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments Support: no personal warranty for prose, but it seems to be adequately looked at above. (Some sort of image check probably a good idea?). Will revisit the balance issues at FAC if you take the article there, but I'm satisfied that it's not a significant enough problem for ACR.
 * Is "scrubbed" a reference to scrub? Could this be clarified?
 * Yes. Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think the length of the "prelude" section is justified?
 * The Background and Prelude sections tell the reader about Where and Why the battle was fought; the actual Battle section is concerned mainly with How, drawing on an understanding of details in the preceding sections. Keogh devotes three pages out of nine to the Background and Prelude; in his larger account, McCarthy uses 12 out of 45. Given the encyclopaedic nature of this account, I believe that the balance is good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that due to the poor quality of the articles on the various campaigns in the Pacific at this time, high quality articles on their constituent battles need to provide lots of background (I faced the same problem in the Battle of Arawe article). In this case, the New Guinea Campaign article sucks. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise looks good. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - this is a really sterling article, excellent work you two. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 1 March 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.