Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Sattelberg

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Sattelberg[edit]

I am requesting this article be peer reviewed because I would like to see what might be required to take it to GAN. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newm30[edit]

  • Do we know which United States Army engineer units were dispatched to begin work constructing airfields and other base facilities at Finschhafen? Or should we leave until the creation of the article battle of Finschhafen, in a base development section.
    • I haven't been able to identify these units, yet. Keogh seems silent on it, unfortunately. I'll keep hunting around for it, though (it will definately need to be included in the Battle of Finschhafen article, but it could fit briefly into this one, also). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've found mention of the 808th Engineer Battalion in Dexter, so I've added that. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while the 2/24th Battalion would advance north-west across the Siki River and capture the 2200 feature...., should this be Siki Creek? Newm30 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PINTofCARLING[edit]

  • How about a map of New Guinea in the background section? I know the rough shape of New Guinea but I am not familiar with any geographic details (distances etc.) which might be the case for other readers as well. The link to Huon Peninsula campaign doesn't provide any helpful map and the one you provided only shows a limited part (though the most important one, of course). A map of New Guinea like this one would be helpful to get a quick overview.PINTofCARLING (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. Good suggestion: I had a hunt around for some general maps before and somehow missed this one. I've added it now, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo[edit]

  • Bibliography looks good, but, any journal articles in the military academic presses?
  • Is Coulthard-Clark a sole authored encyclopaedia, or do individual articles have individual authors. If the latter, the articles should be cited as separate works.
    • I believe it to be sole authored. The individual entries don't have by lines, although they do have references. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verb at end of clause with massive parenthetical clause, rewrite "At the point where the attack was aimed, a red roofed hut—a part of the mission complex about 300 metres (330 yd) below the Lutheran church—stood."
  • Was there any contemporary analysis, domestic, or political reaction to the battle? Too small to count perhaps?
    • I haven't come across any as yet, but will have a bit of a hunt around. Maybe the newspapers of the time might have something: I think I can view these through the national archives. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation density through the narrative looks good, narrative structure looks good. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cs32en[edit]

  • German New Guinea Both Sattelberg and Finschhafen are German names, dating back to the period of German New Guinea. As a German reader, I was wondering about the origins of these names (one would expect the names to change after the end of the German protectorate, but they apparently did not). In my view, there should be a short sentence explaining the issue, with a link to German New Guinea.
    • Thank you for taking a look at the article. I've tweaked the article to briefly mention the German colonial adminstration of the area, however, I don't think that it is in the scope of this article to discuss the history of the area in too much detail. I feel that that sort of information would be better placed in the Sattelberg and Finschhafen articles themselves. Regarding the names, I believe that some places in New Guinea were changed and others were not, although I can't really say I have much authority in saying this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the addition to the article! Indeed, there is no need for a lengthy explanation here, nor would that be appropriate with regard to the overall balance of the article. The addition clarifies that these places carried German names for historical reasons.  Cs32en Talk to me  08:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7[edit]

  • You mention air support provided by the US 5th Air Force and by No. 4 Squadron, which was sort the the 9th Division's private air force, but other RAAF units also provided air support, including Vengeance dive bombers.
    • Thanks for this. Do you know what squadron they were from? So far I've only found mention of No. 4 Squadron. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Vengeance dive bombers were from No. 24 Squadron. (Odgers, pp. 85-87)
  • The advanced party of the 808th Aviation Battalion arrived on 7 October, followed by the main body on 23 October. The 870th Aviation Battalion followed by the end of the month. The Seabees did not arrive until December. It was not until then that GHQ decided to build a major base (Base F) at Finschhafen, and the 5th Air Force began moving in, so its really outside the scope of the article. (Read all about in in Casey. Airfield and Base Development) (There were also the Australians of the Finschhafen Base Sub Area.)
    • Ok, I've tweaked the wording a bit. My source (Dexter) says "808th Engineer Battalion") - I'm not sure if what the correct designation is though. I'll keep hunting around to see if there is any more in my sources about these units.AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The correct title is "808th Engineer Aviation Battalion" Casey is your best source. You might also try Builders and Fighters.Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention the 532nd EBSR though. Without them, the Matildas would not have been able to deploy.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "divisional assets" - the 1st Tank Battalion was not a 9th Division unit.Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under operational control of divisional headquarters (i.e "attached"), with tactical control at brigade level. Both Dexter 1961, p. 608 and Keogh 1965, p. 329 use the term "divisional resources". Do you think it should be changed to that? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Battle_of_Sattelberg&oldid=1089032899"