Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raid at Cabanatuan/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

Raid at Cabanatuan

edit

Raid at Cabanatuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After recently watching The Great Raid, I was really interested on learning more about the historical events the film is based on. I searched for book after book, and was fortunate to find plenty of detail to significantly expand this article. Covering the events of a prisoner rescue attempt, where over 500 people were freed from a POW camp (except for a guy left in the bathroom!), I think you will find the article to be an interesting read. With quality images provided by Jappalang, and extensive copyediting performed by Malleus Fatuorum and Ericleb01, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. I got the ISBN off of Google Books, and from the Book sources page, it only works on a few of the databases. I looked for other editions of the book as well as tried a few other ISBN numbers, but they also didn't work for the majority of the databases (including WorldCat). A Google Books and Amazon search also don't turn up anything. Does WorldCat provide ISBNs anywhere on their pages? If not, it would probably be beneficial to keep the current ISBN as it's accessible on Google News where the entire publication is available for full viewing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they will put the isbn in if they have it .. they also do OCLC numbers, which you can use to find the correct edition also. I'm not worried about it being unreliable, just it was a bit odd that the isbn was off for WorldCat. (I like WorldCat because it'll give me a idea of how many libraries have the work, generally the more that have it, the better the chances of the work being "mainstream" and not fringy) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat and Google Books are the most helpful when searching for new sources (although Amazon actually allows for purchasing when no local libraries have it). This is the first article I've worked on where the majority of cites are from books, so I'm sure it definitely makes for an easier lookover. Out of curiosity, how do you check the ISBNs for FACs? Is there a tool that assists or do you just manually enter each ISBN into WorldCat? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Randomly found myself here) He probably uses the WP:ISBN feature accessible through your in-article references. You can search the ISBN on any book provided that you have it written on a page (example: ISBN 1-4289-1576-1 displays ISBN 1-4289-1576-1). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was aware of that, I was just wondering if there was a tool that quickly checked all of them instead of her manually going through and clicking on each link (which may be repetitive with numerous book sources). That page is helpful for finding books in local libraries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Very interesting read! Look forward to supporting, here's a few comments/suggestions to think about: Sasata (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 25 acres -> convert to metric
    Converted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To supplement their diet, prisoners were able to smuggle food and supplies into the camp during Japanese-approved trips to Cabanatuan, usually in their underwear." They made these trips in their underwear?
    I think some may have with the heat, but I reworded it to be a little clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The agreed on plan figured the attack would commence" awkward construction
    Tried rewording, let me know if it still doesn't flow well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • my knowledge of military weaponry is limited… how about a link to carbine? Probably bazooka as well (I see it's linked in a later section)
    Added a few links. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article says the scouting teams left Guimba at 19:00 hours, but does not explain where Guimba is. A paragraph later, "… a radio set was based outside of Guimba." what is meant by "radio set"? would "established" be a better word choice than "based"?
    Added wikilink and reworded radio set to be clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link reconnaissance
    Linked first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of having a map that would show the locations of these names (Platero, Cabu River, Guimba, Pampanga River, etc.)? Ok I see the route map in the "Trek to American lines" section. Maybe this should be placed in the Strategy section, where several of these place names are first mentioned?
    I think it's current placement is helpful for detailing the return trip, which is also mentioned in the related section. Also, listing it at the top would kind of 'spoil' the story (assuming a reader skipped over the lead). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mucci had already given Nellist's January 29 afternoon report and forwarded it to Capt. Prince, whom he entrusted to determine how to get the Rangers in and out of the compound quickly" I think that one's supposed to be a "who"
    I must have been sick the day they covered this grammar lesson in school, so I'll trust you on that one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the raid would be accomplished in thirty minutes or less." thirty -> 30
    Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • peso should link to Philippine peso
    Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • depending on the width of my browser, the right side of the text in the "Outcome and historical significance" section pushed up very close to the left edge of the "Prisoners rescued" table; is there a way to fix that by including an invisible margin or something around the table?
It does that to mine as well, and although I tried several parameter changes, I didn't see a difference. Looking over Help:Table, I see the same spacing issue, so I don't know if there is a way to correct it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • File:Henry mucci.jpg - Where does the source indicate US Army authorship? "National Archives Photo" does not mean the photo is public domain. Indeed, per the Archives, "not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain". Who is the author?
      It's hard to see, but in the bottom left of the image is a symbol for the Signal Corps, a unit of the U.S. Army which would qualify the image as public domain. It was definitely a good idea to whoever decided to have the unit go along with the group. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Robert Prince.jpg - Same as above.
      The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit, same as the one above (this one just doesn't have the symbol included). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Where can that authorship information be located? Эlcobbola talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The image is available at the National Archives and the only people with cameras that were present during the raid were the 832nd Signal Service (all of the soldiers would have been forbidden from carrying other items besides the required weapons, food, etc. to prevent making noise or slowing them down during the long trek). However, since I don't have a direct link to the image from the National Archives I can't provide that detail. For now, I have replaced it with a smaller image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Northrop P-61.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.
      Source added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The source doesn't attribute an author. Where can we verify this is a federal work? Эlcobbola talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Couldn't find anything so I just switched it out for another image that was available from the U.S. Air Force. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:AlamoScoutsRaidCabanatuanFeb1945.jpg - Why isn't the author (W. E. Nellist) credited? Where does the source indicate W. E. Nellist was a federal employ conducting official duties (i.e. that this is a federal work)? Эlcobbola talk 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Nellist is one of the Scouts in the image, so he's not the author. The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit. The website the source is linked to probably contacted Nellist for use of the image, since he likely had many pictures from the actual event (probably the reason why they credited him). I saw similar occurrences of other soldiers providing photos for newspaper articles and books. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies if I misread the caption. Where can we verify attribution to "832nd Signal Service photographers"? Эlcobbola talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      If you view this page, a very similar image (picture asgh_048) is available (with some of the same people and same background) which was taken by the 832nd. I'm assuming they had a few more people join this picture. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll strike the oppose once the new video issues are addressed, but I won't consider this fully resolved and will leave it as a comment for others to contemplate. It's not the same photo, so it could have a different author or other "purpose" (PD-Gov applies to authors performing official duties; just because one is deployed in the armed forces and in possession of a camera does not mean all images taken therewith are not eligible for copyright protection). It's further an issue of verifiability over truth. No federal authorship is attributed at the source, so the federal authorship license is not supported. Again, I'll leave it to others to decide whether they care. Perhaps just use the asgh_048 photo? Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The attached military photographers were included with the rescue mission for the sole purpose of documenting it (probably for troop morale-boosting videos afterwards). Since there were orders for them to take the pictures/video, that would classify as official duties rendering them invalid for copyright use. There was a Life magazine photographer that took some pictures, but that was not until the POWs were returned to Guimba (none of those images are used in the article since they are tagged as non-commercial, but they're linked to in the external links). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:RangersGuerillasBehindEnemyLinesRaidCabanatuanJan301945.ogv and File:PrisonersReturnRaidCabanatuanJan311945.ogv both need sources; "Signal Corps archive footage" is a description. Where did these files come from? Where can one verify federal authorship? Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      The videos were pulled from a documentary found in a YouTube video which I have now linked to (I figured we didn't encourage the use of linking to YouTube, so that's why I had just listed archive footage). Additional footage can be seen at this YouTube video, but since it was included in the film The Great Raid with added text and aesthetic pauses, I wasn't sure if that would be considered a derivative work. Would the addition to the video pages of a citation saying that the attached four Signal Corps photographers were there to document the rescue attempt be sufficient with authorship issues? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose stricken, as source links resolve the issue (yes, it would be helpful to add the photographer documentation comment). Other reviewers can judge whether they care about the lack of explicit authorship attribution, a technicality. Эlcobbola talk 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have also added several videos in addition to the replacement images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Comments - Support - just a few things, and then I'll support this. I looked this article up after I watched the movie a couple years ago, and the article has come a long way since then.

It looks good, but a few niggles:

  1. Why link both the general "Philippines" and "Cabanutuan City" next to each other? The latter contains a very prominent link to the former. MOSLINK says to be specific. (Same for the NE and Ph in the infobox: readers need one link, the most specific.) WP is not a dictionary, so why link "guerrillas" and "muzzle"? Links should not be a substitute for spelling out an initialism, such as "POW camp"; why not spell it out first time, without the link—it's hardly obscure, and the target article isn't focused on the specifics of the Japanese POW camp.
    I removed the links for Philippines as well as the links in the infobox. Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have the benefit of being an encyclopedia and I considered that readers may not necessarily know that much about the two terms, and preferred to error on the side of having the link present. Since guerrillas are significantly referred to in this article, it would be best for readers to have background on strategies of the type of warfare if necessary. For the POW, I did spell it out for the first occurrence in the lead as well as in the article, but I have now removed the wikilinks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Pillbox" is piped from "bunker": again, readers shouldn't have to hit the link to find out what this deceptive link means ... "pillboxes (bunkers)", possibly without the link (I haven't checked the target for specificity).
    Reworded to "pillbox bunkers" to keep the designation as well as better inform the readers with the link. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MoS says en dashes as interrupters should be spaced; or to use an unspaced em dash.
    I think at one point I had all emdashes, but they were probably moved around during the copyedits. I believe I have fixed all occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Layout of the camp: unfortunately garish in colour, but nothing in it is intelligible at that size, including the key. If it's important enough to include, why not a bit bigger? Is the Fisher pic of sufficeint res to enlarge a bit? Same for the Black Widow?
    I modified the image sizes (however, I'm editing from a different computer than when I was working on the article so it looks the same to me), but feel free to increase the size as you see fit. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "assorted terrain"? no ... assorted cookies. And are rivers terrain?
    Nice catch. I was so happy to get a video for the article, I just through the caption together. I've reworded a bit, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I haven't looked at the vid guidelines, but surely we'd like to know the duration in the caption ... Tony (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over WP:VIDEO (which currently isn't a guideline), there are no details about how captions should be organized (and the example they provide does not list the duration). Readers are able to see the duration on the video's page or if they initiate the video. If we're ever going to see a significant rise in video use on Wikipedia, we definitely need to get the WP:VIDEO page better organized and have more detailed guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to addressing these tomorrow when I have Internet access (kind of hard to edit using the iPhone). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Lt. Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar etc. - should be "At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar", you've already mentioned Nellist's rank.
    Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American soldiers also paid 5 pesos to each of the carabao cart drivers who had helped to evacuate the POWs - it would be helpful if we knew what this was worth in today's dollars.
    I'm trying to find an inflation calculator for the currency, but haven't found anything yet. I'll keep looking. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • $1 ($9.04 in current U.S. dollars), $1.50 per day (a combined total of $22.59 in current U.S. dollars). - simpler wording is "$1 ($9.04 today)" etc., which is just as clear.
    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An estimated 530 to a high of 1,000 Japanese soldiers were killed during the assault. - this is awkward. I would write something like "Estimates of the Japanese soldiers killed during the assault ranged from 530 to 1,000".
    Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Cpt. Fisher and Cpl. Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery. - could be "Both Fisher and Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery.", we've already mentioned their ranks.
    Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an effort to quell the increase in American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcasted to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc. - this is awkward. Better wording might be In an effort to counter the improved American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcast to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc."
    Sounds better, reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the American public, for the raid had touched an emotional chord - I think "and the American public, as the raid had touched an emotional chord" would be better.
    Nice catch. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Douglas MacArthur spoke about his reaction to the raid - you can probably just use "MacArthur" here, without a link. He's already been introduced and linked earlier in the article.
    Must have happened with the shuffling of information during copyedits. Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Lt. Col. Mucci was nominated for the Medal of Honor, he and Capt. Prince both received etc. - "Although Mucci" and "he and Prince" should be fine here, we've mentioned them and their ranks before.
    Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other American officers and selected enlisted received Silver Stars. - how were the enlisted who were to received Silver Stars selected - i.e., was there some general theme? If each one received it for a different reason, though, it would be too much detail to mention.
    The sources do not specify they just list the award. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lts. William Nellist and Thomas Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations - again, we already know their names and ranks, should be "Nellist and Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations". Also, it would be interesting to know why they received the Citations, if there is some general theme.
    Again, no extra details provided that I could see. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Land was donated in the late 1990s by the Filipinos to create a memorial. - what does "by the Filipinos" mean? By the government? By a specific group?
    Government, reworded to specify. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, please look for other duplicated ranks, first names, etc. I've made a few minor copyedits as well. Overall, an interesting, well-written, FA-quality article. I think these issues can be cleared up fairly quickly. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (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/Raid_at_Cabanatuan/archive1&oldid=1138469598"