Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guadalcanal Campaign

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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:59, 11 September 2008 [1].

Guadalcanal Campaign

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)

Respectfully submit this article about a major World War II Pacific War campaign for featured consideration. The article has passed a Good Article review [2] and a WP:MILHIST A-class review [3]. All 17 of the article's sub-articles have already been successfully nominated for FA. Numerous other editors have contributed to the two year effort to build this article to where it is now, including Raul654, Kablammo, eleland, Nick Dowling, Oberiko, Trekphiler, Buckboard, Wwoods, Binksternet, Jim62sch, Work permit, and Burningjoker (my apologies to other editors whose names I've neglected to mention). Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Images: All images Public domain. Image:TokyoExpress.jpg has no source; Image:Japanese battleship Haruna.jpg has a watermark. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Web Section, questions: The web section is placed below references instead of Further Information. However, I went through the first five or six and searched for the author's names; no mention of most of them in the notes. Question: If they are not cited in the text, are they references or Further Information? Follow up: If they are Further Information, are they required to be Reliable sources? I'm not sure, for example, how we can know that http://sitekreator.com/hirose/rep1_en.html isn't simply well-written fiction... Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR)

• Image:TokyoExpress.jpg does have a source: "Pacific Ground War," Shinjinbutsuoraisha, Tokyo, Japan, (2003)". The book includes no further publishing info than that, which, I understand is often the norm with Japanese publications.
• Yes, Image:Japanese battleship Haruna.jpg does have a watermark, which appears to be on the original print kept by the US Navy's historical division and therefore unavoidable.
• The web sites which aren't reliable sources have been removed [4] Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments

• Would it be possible to get an official count on the naval warships involved on both sides. The "strength" section in the infobox gives the impression that it was an all-infantry battle, although a lot of the action (especially in the early portions) occurred between surface and carrier fleets.
• The map in the "battle for Henderson Field" section is really really small, and it is extremely difficult to see the actual details of the map. Would it be possible to expand it a little?
• Other than that, looks good. Cam (Chat) 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with giving the ship counts is that both sides, during the six months that the campaign lasted, deployed most of their entire Pacific naval forces at some point during the campaign. Complicating this, is that some of the naval forces provided only indirect support, such as escorting convoys to the general area but not to Guadalcanal itself, or else provided cover for operations around Guadalcanal from a distance. Submarines, in particular, from both sides operated around the Solomon Islands area but weren't necessarily assigned in direct support of the forces engaged on Guadalcanal. In addition, Australia and New Zealand warships served during this time in support of both the New Guinea and Guadalcanal Campaigns, which were ongoing concurrently. For this reason, a definitive counting of the number of ships, both warship and logistic, involved is extremely difficult and problematic. So, I'm open to ideas about how to capture this in the infobox. The thing about the infobox, though, is it's just supposed to give a quick summary of some important facts from the article. And this particular fact is hard to summarize.
• The images are unsized per the WP:MOS. Any reader who wishes to view the map in larger size needs to click on the image to expand it. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alrighty then. No further issues. Cam (Chat) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - another excellent article on the pacific campaigns of World War II. The few objections I had have both been addressed adequately, so this article is (imho) ready for FA. Cam (Chat) 04:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is an excellent article which meets all the FA criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Qualified Support There are still some things I do not like about this article"
  • "Guadalcanal and the rest of the Solomon Islands were technically under UK/Australian political control during World War II." Actually, Australia only controlled Bougainville and northern islands - the ones that are part of Papua-New Guinea today. What is politically the Solomon Islands today - which you link to - was never under Australian political control, even when parts were under Australian military occupation in 1942 and 1944-45.
  • "Admiral Chester Nimitz, Allied commander in chief for Pacific forces, created the South Pacific theater, with Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley in command on June 19, 1942, to direct the offensive in the Solomons." All wrong. The South Pacific Area was created by Admiral King. He appointed Ghormley, who still in the London, to command it on 13 April 1942. Ghormley arrived in Ackland on 21 May and assumed command on 19 June. And Nimitz did not become CINCPOA (as opposed to CINCPAC) until 8 May 1942.
  • "British Admiral Victor Crutchley" To be consistent with the the Americans, this should be "Rear Admiral". Crutchley was not promoted to four-star rank until after the war.
  • "Without consulting with Vandegrift, Turner, or Ghormley, Fletcher withdrew from the Solomon Islands area with his carrier task forces the evening of August 8" Um, Fletcher was in command after all. Ghormley was on Noumea, Turner on McCauley off Guadalcanal, and Fletcher was on Saratoga. And a lot of radio chatter would have been like ringing Tokyo and telling them his position. (Also: is there an "on" missing?)
  • "In June, the Allies launched Operation Cartwheel, which initiated a strategy of isolating the major Japanese forward base, at Rabaul, and concentrated on cutting its sea lines of communication. This prepared the way for the island hopping campaigns of General Douglas MacArthur in the South West Pacific" Actually the strategy was still to capture Rabaul. It was changed in August 1943. (And Doug would thank you not to describe his campaigns as "island hopping".)
  • Why isn't 1st Marine Aircraft Wing linked?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've addressed your concerns in order below:
• 1. Corrected [8]
• 2. According to Miller, "Guadalcanal", p. 2–3, (listed in the references section), the Joint Chiefs of Staff did create the South Pacific Theater, but that Nimitz was told to pick it's commander, Ghormley. In case that isn't correct, I've left it somewhat ambiguous in the text [9].
• 3. Fixed [10].
• 4. I modified that sentence [11].
• 5. Fixed [12].
• 6. Linked [13]. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I stumbled across this article randomly, and when I finally finished scrolled back to the top to confirm it was already FA. The only thing I noticed that could stand improvement was the maps - it would be nice to have them for all of the major actions, and those that are there are almost universally too small and/or hard to read. Overall, though, a great article, well written, organized, and cited. Blurble (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.