Talk:Battle of Porton Plantation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 06:39, 5 February 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: no dabs - [3] (no action required)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action required)
• Alt text: One image is missing alt text (caption "An aerial photograph showing the landing beach at Porton Plantation in May 1945." - [5]
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • The lead is generally good although you might consider a few minor changes:
    • The first paragraph is a little short, and seems to lack a little context. For instance it might help readers if you stated that the Bougainville campaign occurred in the final years of the war. Perhaps: "Involving forces from Australia, New Zealand and Japan, the battle was part of the wider Bougainville campaign which had continued during the final year of the war." This is just a poorly worded example and you could probably do it better but hopefully it illustrates my point.
    • "The Australians landed unopposed and established a small perimeter, but a number of their landing craft..." maybe change 'but' to 'however'?
    • "As a result, shortly after the battle the Australian...", maybe just simplify to: "As a result, shortly afterwards the Australian..." This would be less repetitive as you have used 'the battle' a couple a times.
  • In the 'Background' section, why did the Australian II Corps replaced the Americans in Bougainville? I assume it was so they could be used in subsequent operations (like the Philippines etc). It might add more context if this were clarified (only just half a sentence is required though).
  • Some inconsistency of terms here: "Australian 11th Brigade" and "7th Brigade" and then "11th Brigade";
  • This is a little repetitive: "came up against a strong Japanese position at Tsimba Ridge and over the course of three weeks fought to gain control of the ridge." Specifically 'ridge' twice.
  • You might consider splitting this sentence into two: "The Japanese force in the immediate vicinity initially consisted of about 100 men from the Imperial Japanese Navy's 87th Naval Garrison Force which had been formed from men drawn from the 211th Pioneer Unit interspersed with regular naval personnel,[18] but over the course of the battle this force grew to between 400 to 500 men." Maybe: "The Japanese force in the immediate vicinity initially consisted of about 100 men from the Imperial Japanese Navy's 87th Naval Garrison Force which had been formed from men drawn from the 211th Pioneer Unit interspersed with regular naval personnel. However, over the course of the battle the strength of the Japanese force grew to between 400 to 500 men."
  • "At 3:57 am on 8 June the first wave landed on the beach in three landing craft." Maybe tweak for clarity to something like "At 3:57 am on 8 June the first Australian wave landed on the beach in three landing craft."
  • "In order to respond to this, an attempt..." Maybe just "In order to respond, an attempt..." Less words to achieve the same thing IMO; and
    • Done all of the above. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do we know what squadrons the Boomerangs, Beauforts and the Corsairs were from? It might be worth including if its available.
    • So far, I haven't been able to find anything that mentions the squadrons specifically, which is annoying. I *think* that the Boomerangs were from No. 5 Squadron RAAF and the Corsairs from No. 14 Squadron RNZAF, but that is total guesswork on my part. No idea about the Beauforts or Mitchells (I just found that one of the other accounts mentions Mitchells as well). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. If its not in the sources thats no drama. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • Article is well referenced.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • No dramas that I can see.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • Although the bulk of the sources are Australian, the use of the few available Japanese sources is quite good IMO.

• 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':

  • All images check out and are appropriate for the article, while the maps are excellent.
    • Yes, SpoolWhippets did a magnificent job. It is a pity they are not still active. Hopefully they will be back soon. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall this is an impressive and well written article about a very interesting battle. There are a couple of minor issues above to be resolved, however once these are dealt with the article will easily meet the GA criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to review. I think I've covered off on everything. Please let me know if I've missed something. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes that it, thanks. Happy to pass for GA now. Take it easy. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)