Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Morotai
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Battle of Morotai[edit]
- Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article has recently been peer reviewed and greatly expanded using a large number of sources, and I believe that it may now meet the A-class criteria. I would appreciate editors' views on the article, including any suggestions for changes needed to meet the FA criteria. Thank you, Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subsequent fighting section should be broken up between ground forces and airforces. Otherwise, it looks good. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've split this section, though as there's only a single para on the bombing it was too small to be by itself. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (minor stuff) Support Thanks for the corrections. Nicely done.
- Is it appropriate to rename the "References" section "Bibliography"?
- I fixed some minor errors with commas and whatnot, but it might be beneficial to read it over once more. Particularly for sneaky grammar errors. The majority of the prose, apart from that, looks good.
- "A fast carrier group with two fleet carriers, two light aircraft carriers and escorting ships was also available" (section: "Opposing forces")
- Number of escorting ships is unclear.
- The article mainly uses DMY, and the references are in a completely different format (i.e., 9 September 1945 vs. 2009–02–08). Should these be consistent?
Nice work. --Icy // ♫ 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for those comments. My responses, in the order above, are:
- There's no particular reason why not, though WP:CITE appears to endorse the current heading names and WP:LAYOUT is unclear on this issue.
- I'll have another read through and fix these. I note that all three reviewers so far have fixed grammatical problems, so hopefully the article is now a bit tidier (thanks a lot for the assistance with this)
- Done
- Done - this was a hangover from when these fields in the references template were automatically wikilinked Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Icy was thinking of the same thing as me when I wrote User:the_ed17/Rename Notes. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for those comments. My responses, in the order above, are:
- Another question, missed this my first time through: "The following day, a company from the 126th Infantry Regiment unsuccessfully attacked a well dug in Japanese force near Wajaboeta on the island's west coast."
- Support. Excellent work. Since the peer review, you appear to have located some sources with significant additional information, such as the Craven, Drea, and Lee books. I'll have to ask you separately how you were able to get ahold of the Craven book, since the HyperWar site, as far as I know, hasn't posted this online yet and I don't know otherwise how to find it since it seems to be out of print. Cla68 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - detailed, objective, well-sourced and illustrated. Minor suggestions:
- Opposing forces: More for FAC than ACR, I'm not sure about the mix of words and figures for numbers in the same sentence. I know it's often the convention to use words for single-digit numbers and figures for double or more but I've also seen people pulled up in FAC for mixing the two in the same sentence. I haven't had any issues in recent FACs using words to express double-digit numbers so my suggestion for a sentence like "comprised 24 destroyers, four frigates, two Australian LSIs, five APDs, one LSD, 24 LCIs, 45 LSTs, 20 LCTs and eleven LCIs fitted with rockets" is to make them all words - at any rate last time I looked, FAC needed them consistent, all one or the other.
- Aftermath: Might be worth re-linking Australian First Tactical Air Force here as the 10OG link was much earlier and the name had changed in the interim (alternatively could say "Australian First Tactical Air Force (formerly No. 10 Operational Group RAAF)".
- Support Wandalstouring (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.