Huon Peninsula campaign edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded it considerably last week and I am considering taking it to GAN soon. As such, I would like some feedback on its current standard, and any suggestions about possible improvements that I should make before going to GAN. Also, I'd appreciate a few extra sets of eyes to pick up any typos etc. that I might have missed. Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. I've brightened up the colours on the Dec 1943 map a bit, BTW, as they looked "flat". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am only going to make some broad comments. Great job! I wanted to write up Lae and Finschhafen myself, but had not yet got around to it. 
- The picture is really bothering me. That's what the War memorial says, but the article is correct; only the 1st Tank Battalion was in the area. The 2/6th Armoured Regiment arrived at Madang in August 1944. Aaaargh.
- US ships assigned to Rear Admiral Daniel Barbey's naval task force The VII Amphibious Force.
- Once the landing beach had been prepared by a heavy naval bombardment Ten minutes from five destroyers.
- Late in the day, a force of over 70 Japanese aircraft attacked Allied shipping, but were turned back by US fighters which inflicted heavy losses. I'm sure that's what the communiqué said, but I think a bit more should be said about the action in which 57 men were killed and LST 471 and 473 had to be towed back to Brisbane for repairs. (You might also mention the loss at LCI 339 at Red Beach.)
- How about a section on the air campaign?
- How about a section on logistics?
- The Australian Army had been the only ground force engaging in combat with the Japanese in the region prior to the completion of the Huon Peninsula campaign as none of the US forces under MacArthur's command were undertaking combat at the time. Of course, the article itself belies this. You need to phrase it better.
Very impressive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. I've made a number of changes to deal with the above points. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? In regards to the sections on logistics and air operations, yes I will see what I can do. As it's not something I'm familiar with, though, it will take a while. I'd hoped to just cover that in the main narrative, but you are right, a separate section is probably the way to go. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)