Talk:Battle of Sattelberg/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: - the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
• Disambiguations: None found - [3] (no action required)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action required)
• Alt text: Most of the images lack alt text - [5] (not required for GA so its up to you if you want to add it)
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • As the United States is listed as a beligerant in the infobox the article probably should be added to the appropriate category as well (e.g [[Category:Battles of World War II involving the United States]] or [[Category:Battles involving the United States]], which even one exists);
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a little long for my liking: "As the 20th Brigade advanced south towards their objective at Finschhafen, captured documents indicated that the Japanese were moving three infantry battalions to the high ground to the west at Sattelberg, at an old Lutheran mission station that had been established in the 19th century during the German colonial administration of the area and which was situated about 900 metres (3,000 ft) above sea level." Maybe attempt to split it into two?
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This seems a little repetitive: "Concerned for the security of his lines of communication due to the presence of Japanese on the high ground to his flank, the Australian brigade commander adopted more cautious tactics to protect his flank, while reinforcements were called for." Specificially you mention the Australian flank twice, perhaps the language could be tightened to use it only once?
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "As the threat of Japanese counterattack grew, the 24th Brigade landed at Langemak Bay on 10 October to reinforce the 20th." For clarity I think you should add 'Brigade' to the end of this sentence.
  • Are there articles for terms like 'beachead' and 'operational control'? If so probably best to wikilink them.
    • I've added beachhead, but the link to operational control is a redirect to an accountancy article titled "Internal audit", so I don't think it would be relevant unforunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Too easy. Anotherclown (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems a little problematic to me: "However, the forewarned Australians, with assistance from American support units, were able to check these attacks and by the time that the Japanese called off their offensive on 25 October, the Japanese 20th Division had suffered 352 men killed and 564 wounded, while the Australians had suffered 228 casualties." Maybe try something like: "Forewarned, the Australians were able to check these attacks with assistance from American support units, and by the time that the Japanese called off their offensive on 25 October, the Japanese 20th Division had suffered 352 men killed and 564 wounded, while the Australians had suffered 228 casualties."
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Can 25 pounder be wikilinked? (IMO they were likely to be either the Ordnance QF 25 pounder or the modified version known as the Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short - according to Horner (1995) The Gunners p. 363 the 2/12 Field Regiment had both during this campaign, two batteries of standard 25-pounders and one of the short 25-pounders);
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Machine gun" should be hypenated, i.e. "machine-gun" per the Macquarie dictionary;
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is repetitive and potentially confusing: "Progress subsequently became very slow, and as the 2/48th Battalion approached "Coconut Ridge" (designated Highland 5 by the Japanese) at around midday,[44] one of the Matildas lost a track to a 25-pounder artillery shell which had been placed on the track by the defending Japanese and was subsequently disabled." Specifically use of the word track twice but to mean different things (I'm assuming the Japanese placed the shell on a foot track, not on the vehicle's track). Maybe reword?
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This is repetitive: "Firing upon the Australians with machine-guns, mortars and grenades, the Japanese defenders upon Coconut Ridge held up the Australian advance for the rest of the day. Throughout the rest of the day, the 2/48th Battalion undertook a series of flanking attacks..." Specificially use of "rest of the day" twice.
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Punctuation seems a little off here: "The Japanese abandoned Coconut Ridge that night and in the morning, the Australians brought up three replacement tanks." Maybe: "The Japanese abandoned Coconut Ridge that night, while in the morning the Australians brought up three replacement tanks."
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Repetative: "In the early afternoon, the advance was resumed, however, the Australians only managed to advance a further 250..." Specifically use of "advance" twice.
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • You might consider adding a phrase on what a Fougasse is (even though you have wikilinked it). Maybe try: "Progress was made, however, and amidst hand-to-hand fighting troops from the 2/48th managed to seize part of the 2600 feature (Steeple Tree Hill), after engineers under the command of Lieutenant (later Captain) Augustus Spry, helped clear the way through the use of two fougasses, improvised mines which were used to stun the Japanese while the infantry attacked."
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there maybe too many commas here: "Caught between two groups of Australians, during the course of the night, the two Japanese companies that had been holding the position abandoned it, and fell back towards the main defensive position at Sattelberg." Maybe just "Caught between two groups of Australians, during the course of the night the two Japanese companies that had been holding the position abandoned it, and fell back towards the main defensive position at Sattelberg."
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems very long and could probably be split into two: "This had the effect of squeezing the strength out of the Japanese counterattack and forcing them into undertaking piecemeal attacks which were dealt with by the Australians with relative ease,[62] and although the fighting around Scarlet Beach continued until 28 November when the units involved were withdrawn towards Wareo,[63] it did not have the urgency to affect the 26th Brigade's advance on Sattelberg[18] and was largely broken up by 23 November."
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Punctuation here: "To make matters worse, near the junction of the Siki Creek, a landslide that had resulted from the Allied bombing, coupled with a number of land mines that the Japanese had planted blocked the main road to Sattelberg, meaning that the soldiers from the 2/48th would have to make the final attack on Sattelberg without armoured support." Maybe just add a comma between "planted" and "blocked"?; and
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In the aftermath you write: "Sergeant (later Lieutenant) Tom Derrick, was awarded the Victoria Cross." As you have already introduced him above this should just be "Derrick". Also when you first mention him you write "Sergeant Tom Derrick" perhaps this should be "Sergeant (later Lieutenant) Tom Derrick".
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • References look fine, only two minor issues:
    • you may like to wikilink George Odgers using the authorlink parameter in the cite template;
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thompson ref is missing place of publishing (my copy of Pacific Fury was published in North Sydney).
      • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • A few relatively minor points above, otherwise this article easily passes the GA criteria IMO. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • All issues have now been resolved so I'm happy to promote to GA. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comments, you picked up quite a few points I'd missed. I appreciate your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)