Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Labuan/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2015 [1].

Battle of Labuan[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Labuan was among the last engagements of the Second World War, and was fought between Australian and Japanese forces during mid-June 1945. The Australians invaded the island in Brunei Bay as part of a campaign whose value remains controversial, and overcame its considerably outnumbered garrison after 11 days of at times fierce fighting. As such, it provides an interesting example of engagements late in the Pacific War, where the suicidally brave Japanese forces were totally outclassed by the firepower available to Allied units.

I've been working on this article since January, and am hoping that it can reach FA status by the 70th anniversary of the start of the battle. The article passed a GA nomination in January, and recently passed a Military history Wikiproject A-class review. I have since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it meets the FA criteria. As I noted in the A-class review, I have a family connection with this battle, as my grandad was a member of one of the Australian infantry battalions involved.

Thanks in advance for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the diff since my last edit during the A-class review, and I supported on prose there. Very happy with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support My apologies for not reviewing this article at A-class. The article is very good, but I do have some concerns.

  • It seems odd that the Article makes no mention of the codename of the Operation, Oboe 6.
  • I have some problems with the background. The first two paragraphs are great; the last two may strike the reader as contradictory. To avoid this, I would trim the last sentence of the third paragraph so it reads: "Labuan was to be developed as a base for warships and aircraft, and form part of a string of strategic positions which would allow the Allies to control the seas off the Japanese-occupied coast of Asia between Singapore and Shanghai." It was however developed as a PT boat base. (Is that mentioned?)
    • Done. Do you have a source for the PT boat base on Labuan? The DANFS history of the only PT boat tender involved in this Brunei Bay operation says that the base was constructed on Muara Island [2] (though it's implied that she'd anchored off Labuan initially), and Bulkley's history doesn't give a location for the base [3] Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now for the more last paragraph of the background. Long is working from Ehrman, Grand Strategy (1954), pp. 224-227. Wilson informed the BCOS of Oboe 6 on 17 March, and the detailed plans reached them on 13 April. The response referred to was sent to Wilson on 27 April. The Americans then replied that a British base in the Philippines would not be available, and suggested that they reconsider. The BCOS then sent the 24 May message quoted by Long on p. 51. This brings us to the last sentence. Now Blamey visited MacArthur in Manila on 4 May and then Morshead on Morotai on 9 May. Morshead issued orders that emphasised that Labuan was not to be developed as a major base. Notwithstanding the weasel word "probably" (Coombes says "presumably", which I take to mean that he has no proof), I suggest that this sentence be deleted.
  • I would appreciate a bit more on the command arrangements. That the landing was carried out by Rear Admiral Forrest Royal's Amphibious Group 6 (And that since Royal died on 18 June, he is the most senior officer casualty in the North Borneo campaign). The air arrangements are worth a mention. Because GHQ cut LHQ out of the command arrangements ostensibly because it could deal with only one headquarters, the table were turned, and the 13th Air Force was placed under Bostock's command so there would be only one air commander.
  • I don't think "However, the 9th Division had been out of action since early 1944, and the prolonged period of training it had undertaken in North Queensland had led to poor morale and an erosion of combat skills among its combat units" is a fair summary of the source (Converse, p. 189) All he says is that the unit had become bored, while noting that its level of training was impressive. Tarakan and Labuan tended to indicate that the division that had cut through Rommel's army at El Alamein and stormed Sattelberg had lost
    • That's a fair point; tweaked. Converse does later say that the 9th Division's performance in Borneo was below its standards earlier in the war (pp. 221-223), but focuses on the 26th Brigade's difficult campaign on Tarakan and, to a lesser extent, the 2/28th Battalion on Labuan (which I think is illustrated in the article). Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to expand the last section just a little, if you have no objection. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that, as well as your other changes and your review Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saw the review request and had a quick look, revert any changes as desired. Can do a bit more if wanted.Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • I reviewed this article at ACR and have revised the changes since then so am happy that the content is of a very good standard. Only a few minor prose points:
      • I'm not sure if this sentence is as good as it could be: "The 24th Brigade left from it to capture the eastern shore of Brunei Bay...", consider perhaps something like: "The 24th Brigade left the island to capture the eastern shore of Brunei Bay..." or something like that.
      • "In line with standard Japanese doctrine, the Labuan garrison did..." This seems a little tautological ("standard doctrine" - isn't doctrine always standard?). Perhaps just "In line with Japanese doctrine.." (suggestion only).
        • Thanks for catching that - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few spot checks of sources (I have Long, Gill, Odgers, Johnston and Coulthard-Clark):
      • #9a - "The main purpose of attacking Brunei Bay was to secure it as a base for the British Pacific Fleet (BPF), and gain control of oil fields and rubber plantations in the area." This isn't quite supported by the source (Coulthard-Clark p. 252 states that the objective was to secure an advance fleet base to be established but doesn't mention BPF, the rest is supported though). This is a bit of a nitpick I agree (and this is implied by the source), although perhaps you may wish to include a ref which specifically mentions the BPF? Perhaps Long The Final Campaigns p. 50 might be an option?
        • Thanks for spotting this: that sentence did change over time, and I should have updated the referencing to fully support the wording. Now done. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • #10 - supported by Odgers 1968, p. 466 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #23 - supported by Long 1963, p. 465 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #44 - "The main body of the convoy anchored off Labuan, and the remainder proceeded to the Brunei area. A Japanese aircraft dropped a bomb near two of the transport ships off Labuan at 6:51 am, but caused no damage." This doesn't appear on Gill 1968, p. 460. It actually appears on p. 640 (so I'd say this is just a typo).
      • #45 - same issue as #44 I think, fairly sure this appears on Gill page 641 not 461 (citation #46 is correct though and is supported by Odgers 1968, p. 470 with no issues with close paraphrase)
        • Fixed both of the above. I'd spotted and fixed a similar transcription problem with another source: I must be becoming old aged! Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • #57 - supported by Johnston 2002, p. 232 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #61 - supported by Long 1963, p. 475 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #65 - same issue as citations #44 and #45, this seems to appear on Gill p. 643 not 463.
    • I added a little missing bibliographic information and made a MOS tweak here [4]
    • Otherwise I think the article does a good job of covering the topic and meets the FA criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, it looks good to me. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cliftonian

Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Will note thoughts as I go through

  • Lead and infobox look good
  • Background:
  • Copyedited a little bit here
  • "Chinese-ethnic civilians" Is "Ruritanian-ethnic"/"Azanian-ethnic" standard Australian usage? Not sure I've seen it before—though the meaning is clear.
  • Preparations:
  • Copyedited a bit here
  • "over 29,000 men" including officers, yes? and were no women there in support roles?
  • Good point: tweaked to "personnel". Some female nurses would have arrived when permanent hospitals were built, but all the units in the assault force were exclusively male per Australian policies at the time (which were generally very conservative about allowing female nurses near combat areas). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restoring the colonial government" perhaps worth clarifying that we mean the British colonial government as the reader may have missed the reference earlier in the article
  • Hmm, I think that the "British" in the name of the unit should give readers that reminder without repeating the term (or an equivalent). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't Lieutenant-Colonel hyphenated in Australia? Not really a big deal either way, just make sure you're consistent within the article
  • I just checked, and Garth Pratten's excellent recent book on Australian Lieutenant Colonels of World War II doesn't use hyphens. Good point though. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Japanese garrison on Labuan comprised 650 personnel, made up of 400 airfield troops, 100 naval troops and 250 other lines-of-communications personnel" 400 + 100 + 250 = 750, not 650.
  • Whoops! The last number should have been 150: fixed (I remember proofing the article at one point and thinking that something looked wrong with that sentence - see above for other examples of my early onset of old age). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 371st Independent Infantry Battalion ... with a strength of around 350 men" including officers?
  • It's for everyone. The "men" was surplus (I'd used it only to avoid repeating "personnel"), so I've cut it Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle:
  • It is not clear in the first paragraph here who is attacking Labuan? The Australians?
  • maybe put in brackets what prahu are ("... landed near two native prahu (boats) and questioned their crews ...")
  • I think that the Wikilink does this, and the wording of the sentence indicates that they were some kind of water craft Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a prolonged period" how long? A few days? A few weeks?
  • the abbreviated terms "LSI", "LSD", "LST" etc don't seem to me to be terms everyone will understand. Or are these abbreviations more common than the full designations?
  • The abbreviations are the common terms here Dank and I discussed this in the ACR, and he judged that the abbreviations were the better option. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's what I was thinking, but thought I'd mention it anyway. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the party visited a group of front line infantrymen before departing" Were these troops actually in a fire-fight at the time, or were they dug in somewhere?
  • The sources are a bit vague, but my reading of them is that the soldiers were at the front line searching for Japanese positions (Lt Gen Morshead joked to another member of the party that "this is the first time I've ever heard of a commander in chief acting as a point"!) Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does round rather risky. Could have ended badly. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was believed that at least 110 Japanese had been killed" it was believed by the Australians/Allies
  • "An infantry company's signalling position on 26 June" This caption should make clear these are Australians—just saying "an infantry company" seems to me POV
  • Be consistent regarding capitalisation of "The Pocket"/"the Pocket". Either is fine but stick to one or the other
  • Thanks for spotting this - I've standardised on "the Pocket" per the Australian official history's wording Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is likely that around 250 Japanese personnel were initially stationed within The Pocket" according to whom? This statement seems to me to be made from the Allied perspective.
  • That's the figure given in the Australian official history, which drew on Japanese sources as well as Australian. The author doesn't say that it was an Australian estimate. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and killed eight or ten Japanese personnel, but one was damaged by a bomb and another became bogged" recommend rephrasing; when I first read this I thought it was one of the Japanese that had been "damaged by a bomb"
  • Hmm, given that there's a break in the sentence, I think that the current wording is clear: the alternative seems to be to either repeat "tank" or use something clunky like "vehicle" Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Company or "A" Company?
Standardised on just "A Company" Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "150 men sought treatment" military personnel only, or civilians too? Only Australians or also Americans?
  • The wording says that they were "patients" and doesn't provide further details on who they were. The figure is actually the number admitted though, so I've corrected this. Don't ask me why the daily figure was so high: the source doesn't say (reading between the lines, it appears that the 2/28th Battalion's attack was a fiasco which badly damaged the unit's morale, and eventually lead to its commander being sacked, but no source explicitly says this - the official histories are often pretty polite about command failures and no-one else has written about this battle in detail) Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath:
  • copyedited a little here
  • Perhaps give the date of the surrender of Japan for context

Overall the article looks in very good shape and was an interesting read. I hope the above thoughts are helpful. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your very detailed review - I really appreciate it Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure—thank you for the swift replies. I am supporting above. Thank you again for this excellent article, and have a great rest of the week! :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Labuan/archive1&oldid=662228937"