Talk:Battle off Endau/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:50, 15 August 2015 (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 issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • I made a bunch of MOS tweaks and a minor c/e here [7] - pls review my edits and change any you disagree with.
    • Is adding "No." to squadron names an Aussie thing? The British sources that I often use seem to not use it very consistently, like maybe 60-40 against using it. It's not a big deal, but I was kinda thinking about working on more Malaya topics and it would be useful to know ahead of time.
      • Possibly, you will not all the RAF articles are called "No. X Squadron" officially though too. Anotherclown (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You might mention in the lead that the Vampire and Thanet were outnumbered by the Japanese escourts.
  • "At 02:37, Vampire spotted a Japanese destroyer (probably Amagiri), but was not spotted... Three minutes later, they spotted another Japanese ship " Prose here seems a bit repetitious (i.e. "spotted" three times in close proximity). Perhaps reword some of them?
  • Is there a missing word here? " Constantly making small changes of course to throw off Japanese gun layers...", specifically would " Constantly making small changes of course to throw off the Japanese gun layers..."
    • IMO, this one could go either way as I'm not referencing any particular Japanese gun layers.
      • No worries, that's fine. Anotherclown (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a missing word here too? "...before muzzle blast from her rear gun mounts...", again would "...before the muzzle blast from her rear gun mounts..."
    • You're definitely correct about this one though.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • The article is sufficiently referenced to WP:RS and seems to reflect the sources available.
  • No issues with OR I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • "Despite claims to the contrary, neither the transports, nor any of their escorts were damaged..." do you know who made claims and what they were? It might be instructive to provide these claims (with the source), perhaps in a footnote.
  • What impact did the failure to prevent the Japanese landings at Endau have on the ground campaign? This might be included in the aftermath section. The Australian official history of the land campaign, The Japanese Thrust, by Lionel Wigmore has a little on this on page 266 [8] which might add further context (although its not much).
    • Yeah, Wigmore's a bit lacking, I think. An Allied victory at Endau would have done little given that the Australians were already prepared to withdraw in the face of what they though was a multi-battalion-sized landing and that sinking the transports only would have impeded IJAAF operations at those two airfields, which I think were useful, but not critical to their attacks. The problem would be to find some authority who actually agrees with my assessment and sourcing same.
      • I really think some sort of assessment is req'd here. I'm not saying we need to crystal ball and say what an Allied victory at Endau would have achieved but at least provide some statement as to what happened next, i.e. the convoy was able to successfully unload the 96th Airfield Battalion and its signals unit which added to concerns that the 22nd Brigade would face a large scale attack (due to evidence of a simultaneous concentration of Japanese forces to the north) and they made preparations to withdraw etc. Wigmore says this at least I think (or am I misinterpreting it?) and could be used as a ref I think. At the moment the description of the battle seems to exist without any consideration of its effect. Anotherclown (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, see how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks that looks very good to me, especially the influence Moran's report had on the Allied assessment on Japanese night fighting capabilities! Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • All major viewpoints seem to be covered.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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 all seem to be free / PD; however, mostly lack PD US tags. Do they need them (I'm unsure hence why I ask, Commons is a bit of a mystery to me). Pls have a look and let me know what you think. Happy to strike the cmt if you don't think its relevant?
    • I added one US PD tag for the minesweeper, but all of the AWM and IWM photos don't generally need US PD tags as their lack of copyright is world wide.
      • No worries happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Overall this looks pretty good to me, just a few minor points and maybe the aftermath section to flesh out. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Sturmvogel 66: - G'day not sure if you saw it on your watchlist but I posted my review a few days ago. Have you had the chance to look over these points yet? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the thorough review, sorry to take so long in responding. I've been embroiled in the WP:Stub Contest to the detriment of my nominations, but I think that sanity has finally set in ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Not a problem at all. I do think a little more is req'd though, pls see my cmt above. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
          • All my points have been addressed so passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)