Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Admiralty Islands campaign

Admiralty Islands campaign
This article was formerly just a stub. The new article covers the campaign in considerable - perhaps excessive - detail. Let's see if it can be taken all the way to Class B. Hawkeye7 21:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cla68
A few things: ✅ Expanded the introduction. ✅ The map has been swapped with the picture of the landing ✅ Added a section explaining this. ✅ Checked but they have no more material on this campaign.
 * The intro should be expanded by another paragraph or two so that it summarizes in a little more detail the entire article.
 * There's enough pictures available that you can put a picture in the infobox instead of a map. This frees the map up to be used in the article somewhere.
 * You should have more background on why and how the Japanese forces ended-up on those islands in the first place. What was their strategy behind occupying the Admiralties?  What was their strategy to defend them?  I added a reference that perhaps might help with the Japanese POV.
 * The language of the article seems slightly biased in favor of the Allies, which is difficult not to do since the sources are probably written that way. Remember that we're supposed to write the articles in a way that the reader can't tell who the writer wanted to win in the battle.  One way to avoid Allied POV is to put mention of awards of the Medal of Honor and other decorations in the footnotes instead of in the main text.
 * Japanese POV accounts of this campaign tend to terminate abruptly, probably due to the death of Ezaki and his staff. I'll ask the Japanese-reading types if they have anything. Hawkeye7 23:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I usually separate the references into "Books" and "Web" sections so that it's not such a big, overwhelming list.

All in all, a lot of good work on the article, with good detail and well-organized. Cla68 11:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

LordAmeth
✅ Typo. It should have been Yoshio. ✅ Added some more material on Japanese perspective. ✅ Added some more material on Japanese perspective. ✅ Added more wikilinks. Cleaned up wiki articles on landing craft a bit.
 * I agree with Cla68 that there should be more detail in the Background section on the Japanese forces involved. His questions for this are excellent. Also, minor point, but as for the commander Colonel Ezaki Yosho, was his name Yosho, Yōshō, Yōsho, or Yoshō?
 * The pro-Allies POV issue continues throughout the article - the disparity between Japanese and Allies in the degree of detail provided is enormous. There really needs to be more on Japanese tactics, their view of the battle as it progressed, and various actions and troop movements made from their point of view. As Cla68 suggested as well, it is perfectly understandable that, given the types of sources I imagine were used, the POV of the article would come out this way. Still, efforts for objectivity need to be made in all sections of the article.
 * The final analysis section in particular is probably the most unbalanced POV of the whole article. The base building portion, in the aftermath of the battle, is of course told from the Allied point of view, as they had now won the islands, and there were no more Japanese to speak of. But in the final analysis, you write exclusively from the Allied point of view, and the language used makes it sound like one of those over-dramatized History Channel programs. "No general could ask for more" has got to go, and the rest of this section needs to be rewritten to be better balanced, relating not only the Allied benefits in capturing the islands, but also what it meant for the Japanese to lose them, and other aspects such as that.
 * It's good that you link such terms as APD and LCVP, but many other terms are not wikilinked and are therefore unknowns; I think maybe it might be better to also spell them out fully the first time they are used. What do APD, LCVP, LCPR, LST, LCR stand for?

Fixing these POV issues is going to be a lot of work, but outside of that, the article is really great in every other way. Long, detailed, well-organised, well-written, with lots of maps and pictures, and quite well-cited. Thanks for your efforts, and keep up the good work. LordAmeth 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)