I am requesting this article be reviewed for A-class as I believe it meets the criteria. However, I have never done this before. I am willing to make further improvements when and if necessary. Any and all comments welcome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the lead needs to be expanded. The purpose of the lead is to act as a short summary of the actual article, and should be around three paragraphs in length for an article of this size. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Comment Just a note, compliance with the more technical issues of MOS (dashes, dates WL) are not a requirement for A-Class Reviews. Cam (Chat) 06:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Just had a quick glance, not knowing where the Admiralty Islands are, I was quite supprised to see it was a WWII campaign.
One thing I would like to have seen was an Order of Battle. To the non expert the 1st Cavalry Division would suggest men on horses.
They would not be wrong - the 1st Cavalry Division was indeed a horse formation. But they left their horses back at Fort Bliss. There's an order of battle on its page.
The same with No 73 Wing R.A.A.F what did that consist of ?
Nos 76, 77 and 79 Fighter Squadrons; 114 Mobile Fighter Sector HQ; 152, 340, 345, 346 and 347 Radar Stations; 73 Wing Signals Station; 49 Operational Base Unit; 12 Repair and Salvage Unit; No 3 section, 1 Malaria Control Unit; 77 Medical Clearing Station; 12 Air Liaison Party (USAAF); Det 7, Tranportation and Movements Office; Det 4, Replenishing Centre; Det, 16 Store Unit; Det, 7 Coastal Unit; and a canteen unit.
I can supply an order of battle for Operation Brewer - but it will be large and obtrusive. I'd like to know if anyone else feels one is warranted.
Done Added an OrBat page. Some otherv editors have helped out with this one.
Another concern is A Yank correspondent without clicking on the link I presumed this meant A American correspondent prehaps this could be re phrased to A correspondent from Yank, the Army Weekly.
thats all for now will return later Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Support This is a very detailed and well written article on an interesting topic. My only suggestion is that the 'Japanese Perspective' sections should be integrated into the article's narrative. If you've got the material, starting an Admiralty Islands campaign order of battle article would be best way to list the units involved on both sides. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Done Created the Order of Battle article, added it to the "see also". A couple of other editors tidied it up for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Support I would like to see an OOB or a link but that does not stop my support Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The numbers in the info box(35,000 Allied) and the background section(45,000) dont match.
Done Added an explanatory note
The section Battle of Los Negros#Japanese Perspective starts in that vein but it changes to a US perspective, specifically in the para that starts The main Japanese attack was delivered by the 2nd Battalion by the end of that it changed perspective. The last paragraph it opens with By dawn, the attack had subsided. Over 750 enemy dead were counted in and around the American positions when writing from a Japanese perspective 750 Japanese arent "enemy dead", to me this would read better by referring to then Japanese dead. The same area details on McGill Medal of Honor doesnt fit into a Japanese perspective.
Done Split section into two.
Besides these two and a minor copy edit I did it looks like it ready to consider an FA nomination Gnangarra 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment The ndashes in the page range, MOS headers, repeated refs have been taken care of. In the shorthand refs, it isn't necessary to have the book titles, as the author is enough unless an author has multiple books. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Author-date is a common citation style in the humanities, but military historians do not use it - mainly because it is completely impractical when working with primary documents. I agree that that is not the case here, and it could be used in this case, but I would prefer that the references remain in the form that military historians would expect to see. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
In the lead, you probably mean either "the Allies reinforced their position on Los Negros..." or "the Allied powers..."
Also in the lead, bold "Operation Brewer," since it is an alternate name.
It should be American spelling throughout since it deals with an offensive by American forces.
Not done. I take your point, and I initially wrote the article that way, but it proved impractical, and I had to convert it to English. (1) I have no way of automatically checking American spelling. (2) The style manual's overriding requirement is for consistency, and we have, for example, the category "South West Pacific theatre of World War II" down the bottom, which cannot be changed.
In that case the category name is wrong. The entire Pacific War was waged primarily by Americans, so American spelling should be used in the category too. Joe (Talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I would advise spelling out SWPA in the background section - Jargon.
"APDs had to be used as amphibious ships were too slow to make the distance in the time." is not grammatically correct.
" In all, 1,026 troops were carried." This might be better not in passive voice.
For that matter almost the whole article is written in passive. While this is OK occasionally, some of the instances sound unwieldy and awkward.
Done. Cited example rephrased.
"The weather obliged, turning good," in the Battle for the Beachhead section is awkward and should be rephrased.
"Japanese patrol was discovered that had somehow managed to infiltrate the perimeter in broad daylight and penetrate to within 35 metres of the General Chase's command post." This should either be the General's, or, preferably, General Chase's.
All the sections entitled "Japanese Perspective" should be renamed, or integrated with the rest of the article.
" How then did the Allies win?" and the other rhetorical questions in the Aftermath section should be rephrased, rhetorical questions appear unprofessional.
Those issues and those brought by other contributors need to be fixed before I can support this for A-class. Joe (Talk) 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC) All my objections except the spelling have been dealt with, supporting. Joe (Talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.