Talk:Battle of Tsimba Ridge/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Progression[edit]

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

Initial comments[edit]

  • In the lead: "The Battle of Tsimba Ridge was a battle" – this seems a little redundant to me. Perhaps reword?
  • repetitive wording here: "...proved largely ineffective, inflicting only one casualty,[13] as many of the shells proved..." (proved x 2)
  • Missing word here "...The Australians also came across large camp..." → "...The Australians also came across a large camp..."
  • "...who was killed in the subsequent fire fight...", →"firefight" per my Macquarie dictionary
  • Are the other subunit commanders available for the AS Coys? For instance Charlton p. 51 mentions Captain M.M.J. Harris as OC of the 31/51st Bn Coy that conducted the final attack on 6 Feb (so I assume OC B Coy per the map in Long p. 125). Would there be value in including this and others (if they are available)? At the moment you mention OC C Coy Capt Alwyn Shilton, but at the at least Harris probably should be mentioned given his role in the main attack. FWIW Long pp. 125-126 mentions Capt H.C. Downs as one of the other OCs (unclear which Coy) – he was later killed in action in June 1945.
  • Missing word here "...before assaulting the ridge from east..." → "...from the east..."
  • Charlton's account of the conclusion of the 6 Feb action mentions that AS intelligence estimates of the strength of the Japanese forces "had been proved wrong' again (actual strength was more than 900 etc). You do of cse allude to this issue in the prelude, but I wonder if it should be borne out in the aftermath again to cover the point at a more logical point for the reader (chronologically the Australian’s only discovered the error of their intelligence after the battle as far as I understand). This is not to say change what you currently have in the prelude – it works as it is, I just think you might also include something towards the end of the action which mentions the issue of the inaccurate estimates to remind the reader (otherwise it may get lost in the background). Perhaps try to avoid mentioning the detail of the figures again though as that would be redundant I accept. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical review[edit]

  • Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
  • Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: Some of the images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it for consistency (although its not a GA requirement) - [5] (no action required)
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate link to be removed.

Reviewer #2[edit]

Excellent article in every respect.

  • Section 1.2 reads "northeast coast of the island"
Suspect that this is wrong, I think perhaps it should be the northwest.
In support I found an online ref also mentions the west side of the peninsula. (Ref: Davidson p.26)
  • para that reads "but had perceived the likelihood of stopping them before the Genga as being unlikely and had as such decided that he would concentrate his defence around Tsimba Ridge (before the Genga), with supporting elements being placed to the north, near Kunamatoro (after the Genga)"
I think this sentence needs a rewrite, the brackets are mine, perhaps check the original source. This is inconsistent with the comment in the battle section that this was the main line of defence.
Also found some supporting material found on Trove. Perhaps mention the Trove article which described Tsimba Ridge as a "perfect text-book fortress". In the article in the Geraldton Guardian and Express (WA : 1929 - 1947) View title info Sat 17 Feb 1945 Page 3 titled "TSIMBA RIDGE VICTORY" [7]. Any commander would make use of a natural fortress and such an easily defended position as a main line of defence.
  • Section 2 Battle para commencing "On 19 January..."
Looking at the map this indicates a distance of 20km, I don't have access to any of the refs but surely in jungle this must have taken a day or more. It currently reads as though the flanking manoeuvre happened in a day.
Perhaps also mention Downs was subsequently KIA (Ref: Davidson p.26).
  • para commending "Reports had been received..."
This reads better than the intro and makes sense.
  • para commencing "Over the following six days..."
From reading the Japanese attack appears to have been south
  • para commencing "The attack finally came..."
Preceded by a day-long artillery bombardment is worth mentioning [8]. Adds a timer perspective to the artillery bombardment.
  • finally perhaps mentions the user of a superlative such as "Fiercest" in relation to fighting
More than one correspondent mentioned that this was described as the fiercest fighting yet in Bouganville in the press [9]
  • para that says "but the defenders refused to give up the position".
I found more detail on trove [10]
It appears that the Japanese only withdrew to the reverse slope defences. Perhaps worth a mention.

The stories from the war correspondents add a lot of interest to this battle. Cheers. AWHS (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for these suggestions. I don't have Charlton's work anymore, but have tried to deal with these issues as best I can with what I have now. These are my edits: [11]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AWHS - thank you for also taking a look over this article, these points have been very helpful in its further development. AR - I checked Charlton p. 52 and he confirms the location of a Japanese "flanking force in the Kunamatoro area [to the north]" so I think what you have is ok but might be changed from "supporting" to "flanking" if you want to more precisely reflect the source. I'll leave it up to you though. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, I have started to do a contour map on OSM but this is quite challenging. See [12]. If you found any decent maps in your research can you let me know, otherwise I might take a look at the War Memorial next time in Canberra. This article deserves a decent map. As an FYI I have traced the coastline and most of the main rivers using Bing or Mapbox satellite imagery using JOSM so I have the main features sorted. But Google Maps does not really cover this part of the world yet so making sure that I have correctly identified the villages is problematic. I found this reference online at the AWM [13] which identifies the original WW2 TOPO maps and gives most of the grid references. Cheers. AWHS (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Prose looks fine fol initial changes above.
    • No MOS issues that I could see.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • No issues.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • All major aspects appear to have been covered.
    • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
    • One very minor point - I wonder if the AS formations used on Bougainville should be identified as Militia?

Sorry for the repechage but I found a few more things which may / may not warrant inclusion:

  • From Bradley Hell's Battlefield -:
    • In addition to the artillery preparation which you mention, the 6 Feb attack also appears to have been proceded by "air attacks by Corsairs and Wirraways" (p. 395).
    • "On the night of 7 February, the defenders from Captain Kawakami's III/81st Battalion company withdrew" (p. 396)
    • Colin Jorgensen was awarded the Military Medal as a result of the 6 Feb attack (p. 396) - unsure if you wish to include awards of this level but as I didn't see any others mentioned in the source and this was the main attack of the battle it might be significant.
  • James The Hard Slog
    • "The Australians lost twelve killed and twenty-five wounded. These were heavy losses by Australian standards." (p. 118) - underlined portion might be included to provide context? Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues.
  • 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':
    • Images are appropriate for article and are PD and most seem to have the req'd documentation.
      • Should File:Mortar during attack on Tsimba Ridge 1945.jpg have a PD US tag?
    • Captions look fine.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
    • This article looks in very good shape to me. Just a couple of very minor issues remaining above (alt text, the point re Militia, and the possible image tag issue). Anotherclown (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for these comments, I think I've got them all now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I just added a few more points above. Is any of this useful? Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries, thanks for these. I think I've addressed them now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • The recent changes and additions all look good to me. I'm happy this now meets the GA criteria so I'm going to close the review now but if there are any other suggestions from the other reviewer or any other editors I'd be glad to discuss on the talk page. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Tsimba_Ridge/GA1&oldid=716189464"