Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bita Paka

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 Bita Paka

edit
Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel it meets the criteria and covers the topic fairly well. Article underwent a GAR previously and I believe all major issues that arose have now been delt with. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I found this article engaging and interesting to read. Having spent so much time with Hermann Detzner it was interesting to read about other aspects of the unsuccessful German defense of Kaiser Wilhelmsland in 1914. That said, while you've addressed some of the pov issues I raised during the abortive GA review (if I remember correctly, someone nominated the article before it was ready), there is still some work to be done with balance.

The statement about looting and destruction of civilian property (Hiery cite) and in the last section: Later it was alleged that the heavy losses among the Melanesian troops was the result of the Australians bayoneting all those they had captured, here you cited Hiery and Coulthard-Clark, reasonably, but I think the article would be improved by an expansion of this controversy. The Australian government ultimately conducted a major investigation of these charges, and there are reports available (even online, I think). I suggest that this be given more coverage.

Struggling to find anything on the investigation. I'll have to admit that you seem to know more about it than I do. Any suggestions on where to start? I have ordered a few books but they will take a while to ship from the US. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The initial report in the Melbourne Argus is here. (In Trove (as in Treasure Trove).) The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954 Friday 23 April 1915 ). I thought it warranted coverage. There was a huge invesstigation that eventually wrapped up after the war. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done now. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, in the assessment category, perhaps Hiery contains some information on the assessment of the German resistance? I'm not sure if he does.

I do think this needs some addition. Certainly the Germans might or might not have learned something from this. But what were their problems in protecting the colony from invasion? I realize it is "unpopular" to think about the German position vis a vis WWI, but if we are going to fair, don't you think we should? Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into my notes on Detzner, and the story is this: during and after the war a Judge Murray investigated (in a commission) the allegations of looting etc. of the German, Chinese and Japanese properties, and of the manner in which the natives were treated.
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954) November 14, 1919. page 7. Although this particular article deals with the allegations that intertwined with Hermann Detzner, I did stumble on other material relating to Murray's commission that would be useful. All in the Argus. Murray was the Lt. Gov of the territory, and he was appointed in August to investigate the problems of non-British plantation owners. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the article. I'm bringing these issues up now, because they will come up at FA if you decide to go that far. The pov needs to be dealt with, not simply relating to the property and allegations against the Australian soldiers and officers (npov for Aftermath), but also vis a vis the assessment. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit in the assessment. Anotherclown (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs: 1 Dab on bird of paradise Alt text: alt text on first picture, with the soldier marching with the older woman, needs better description. Alt text of 3 officers outside the wireless station is also ambiguous. Really not clear the men are officers, nor is the timing of the picture clear from looking at it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Dabs and alt text done now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support: A well written, illustrated and cited article in my opinion. I have no specific knowledge of the subject, so my review is largely technical. My comments are below:
    • as per above, I found no dabs, external links all worked and alt text is present; (no action required)
    • should the names of German ships (SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau in Prelude section) be italised as the Australian ships are?
Yes, done now.
    • in Footnote 3, is there a page reference/citation for Hiery's suggestion?
More a synopsis of the work in general.
    • per WP:MOS generally values below 10 should be spelled, while 10 and above should use numbers. An example in Prelude section where this is not done "The Bita Paka radio station itself was occupied by 8 Germans and 60 Melanesians...". In the Battle section, "party, consisting of 2 officers and 25 naval reservists was". In the Assessment section, "and one German and ten Melanesians wounded".
Done.
    • the use of 24 hour time might be made clearer for lay readers by adding "hours" after it, or "h" [one might accuse you of leaving an "h" off the parade state, otherwise...:-) ]
Not sure about this. Is there consensus about this format? I'll check the MOS again. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS seems silent on this, so I'd just leave it as you have it already. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that is it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The alt text needs some work. Per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid, phrases like "black and white photo of" should be avoided. Per WP:ALT#Verifiability, everything that the alt text describes should be able to be verified by a non expert looking at the image with no other information given. So, the first image in the Battle section currently has the alt text "German soldiers marching through the jungles of New Britain". A non-expert would probably not be able to tell you these soldiers were German, and they definitely wouldn't be able to tell you they were in New Britain. Several of the images have issues with this second concern. The map of Bita Paka needs some work, as it doesn't really describe what the map is showing. See WP:ALT#Maps for examples. Also, there is something wrong with the formatting in the image in the Aftermath section that is making the alt text show up as the caption. I can't figure out what the problem is, however.
Done now. Alt text is not my strong suit, please have a look. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #3 (Deutsch-Neuguinea) needs a publisher and the addition of the fact that it is in German (this can be done using the "language=" parameter). Since I can't read German, could you tell me who publishes this source and what makes it reliable?
Valid concern. Not sure who published it etc. I have included another source to hopefully take care of this. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Ref #41 (Australians at Rabaul) is in English, it doesn't need to note the language - this only needs to be done for non-English sources.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, first sentence of the second paragraph is a run-on, please split.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, first sentene of the third paragraph, too many "and"s.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background, "now entirely part of Papua New Guinea." "Entirely" is redundant, just say they are "now part of"
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "First established in 1884 the main part of the". Need a comma after 1884.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "by Kaiser-Wilhelmsland, the north-eastern part New Guinea." Not sure what is trying to be said here.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "On 17 May 1885 the". Needs comma after year.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "On 1 April 1899 the German". Again, comma after year.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section, "in the colony, while there was". I think that "and" would work better than "while" here, or splitting it into two sentences would work even better. "While" just doesn't fit properly.
Done.Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am opposing mainly based on prose. In just the lead and Background sections (I stopped after that) I found multiple instances of run-on sentences, redundancy and proper punctuation (mainly commas not being used after full dates). This article needs a thorough look-over for punctuation and prose issues. Also a few issues with alt text and references, but these are minor. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have another look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is an excellent article which easily meets the A-class criteria. I have a few comments you may wish to consider:
    • The first sentence is a bit awkward - I'd suggest that you tweak it so that 'Bita Paka' isn't repeated
Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Bita Paka Map.JPG is almost certainly replaceable with a free image (for instance, this PD image could be edited to include Bita Paka).
    • The second para in the 'Assessment' section should be removed as it has nothing to do with the topic of the article
Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to the last sentence, I'm surprised that there's any doubt that most Germans would have regarded the skirmishes in the Pacific as a side show; at the time this battle was fought German and French army groups were engaged in intense combat. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re last sentence: Arguably, just as many Australians felt that "the real war was in Europe", so too may have done many Germans. >Arguably, although certainly there were lessons learned and mistakes made, Australians and Germans considered that "the real war was in Europe". Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle_of_Bita_Paka&oldid=333961779"