The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk)

Landings at Cape Torokina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

After working on several articles on the later battles of the ground campaign in Bougainville in 1943–1945, I thought it might be interesting to look at the operation that pretty much began the main Allied campaign on the island. The development of this article has been the result of collaboration by many editors, including Hawkeye and myself, as well as quite a few others before we got to it who all helped in their own way. The article went through a successful GA review over the Christmas break, and I am hoping that an A-class review will help improve it further. Thank you to all who stop by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's great to see a good quality article on this under-remembered but key battle of the Pacific War. It's in very good shape, but I'd suggest expanding the coverage of state of play in the region at the time of the invasion to provide stronger context and the results of the operation to make it clearer what an important operation this was. I'm currently reading a book on the air campaign against Rabaul, so can help with some of the below if you'd like.

• The lead is a bit short given the length of the article: I'd suggest adding another para
  • Expanded now. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we know how the US planners determined that there weren't many Japanese troops in the Cape Torokina region, and it would take a long time to move a significant force there? I presume that this was from a combination of code breaking, aerial photography, information from the coastwatchers and possibly some reconnaissance patrols?
  • Added something on this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a bit more about this. The main source was Ultra, and it consistently under-estimated Japanese strengths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps mention that this was the 3rd Marine Division's first campaign (do we know if the Japanese units involved had seen combat before? I presume not)
  • Added something on the 3rd Mar Div; I think the Japanese 23rd Infantry Regiment had been in China previously, but haven't found anything reliable for this yet, unfortunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a ref to the IJA 6th Division having fought in China now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest noting that the Japanese naval and air units stationed at Rabaul had been worn down by the time of this invasion, and posed relatively little threat to it
  • Added something on the degraded air picture and the shifting balance of power at sea. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• On that note, given that the Allied air support is noted in the 'Opposing forces' section, I'd suggest also noting that the Japanese had air support available as well
  • Added something on this. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "a large force of Japanese aircraft (44 fighters and nine dive bombers) was scrambled" - do we know at what time of day?
  • Added this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "This was achieved largely by short-loading each vessel." - I'm not sure what this means, or how it would have sped up the unloading process compared to fully loading the ship.
  • I've attempted to clarify this a bit further. Not sure if that helps. Hawkeye might be able to help clarify further. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, if you load a ship to the gunwales, then it will take longer to unload. If the ship pulls out early, then it will depart partly loaded. And that will mean that what supplies make it ashore is unpredictable. This had happened in earlier landings at Guadalcanal and Lae, with the result that critical items were missing. So if the ship is loaded with what can be unloaded, then the whole ship will be unloaded in the time, and what has been landed is precisely known. Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That explanation looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• " fire from Japanese machine guns and anti-aircraft guns in the beachhead area" - if the garrison had been virtually annihilated on the previous day, were these reinforcements brought in overnight, or harassing fire from small scale surviving positions?
  • Nice catch. Actually only 192 bodies were found, so there were still a few Japanese defenders around. I've hopefully fixed this discrepancy now. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• When did the 3rd Marine Division depart? It might also be worth noting what it did next.
  • Added something on this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest noting that the Japanese sent a significant naval force to Rabaul which was to attack the invasion fleet, with a good chance of success, but it was knocked out of action by an air raid by US carrier aircraft on the town on 5 November. Morrison should cover this, and combinedfleet.com has a useful summary here
  • Expanded this a bit now. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The aftermath section should also discuss the important contribution aircraft based in the Cape Torokina area made to the final neutralisation of Rabaul, as this meant that the operation was a total success Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added something. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for these comments, Nick. I think I've addressed them. When you get a chance, could please take a look and let me know if you think it needs more work? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hawkeye7: G'day, Hawkeye, I've finished with this for the timebeing. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if there is anything you would like to add in response to Nick's comments? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a couple of bits. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nick-D: G'day, Nick, I think we've addressed your comments above. These are the changes: [1]. Can you please take a look and let me know what you think? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed: nice work Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the org chart and beach map
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Location_of_Bougainville.jpg: source for data presented? Same with File:Cape_Torokina_1_NOV-15_DEC_1943.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for taking a look, Nikki. Could you please let me know if you are happy with these changes? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Nikki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  • I did the GA review for this article and after reviewing the recent changes made as part of the ACR I'm comfortable this also meets our A class criteria.
  • After reading through it again I did a light copy-edit and made a few tweaks here. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking another look and your tweaks. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some comments by sections.

Lead

• Suggest: "establishing several airbases from which to project air and naval power", as these were not just airbases.

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Over the course of the next two days, ...". This reads as if it is after the second day. Suggest: "Over the course of the two days following the landing, ...".

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "... US and New Zealand fighters ...". Link to fighters?

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "A strong Japanese naval force was dispatched ... clashed with a strong US naval task force ...". Consider reword to avoid repetition.

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may come back to the lead, depending on other sections. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Cinderella. Thanks for taking a look. I have made the following edits: [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Opperation Cherry Bloossom is a redirect to this page. Is it worth writing it into the lead too? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC) PS Check Cherry Blossom v Cherryblossom for accuracy and consistency, including redirect. I just noticed that Cherryblossom may not be a typo? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell, it was one word ("Cherryblossom"), per [3] and [4], although I imagine there will be some variation. I've created another redirect for "Cherryblossom" and added the codename to the lead. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also [5], FYI.

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "a key objective of the Allied Operation Cartwheel." it is read as: "a key objective of the Allied operation, Cartwheel."

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Seizure of Bougainville offered the Allies forward airfields from which to launch ...". These had to be developed? It was a potential?
  • Adjusted: [6]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Japanese had sought to strike struck south towards Guadalcanal". They did strike south.

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The third para sentence structure was particularly complex. I have rewritten this, mainly for readability. I hope this is satisfactory. I have clarified some locations and corrected a link.
  • Yes, that looks fine to me. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was decided to bypass the Shortland Islands and Kahili, ...". Wasn't Choiseul also bypassed? The Raid on Choiseul article does not indicate a conclusion - did the raid lead to further operations there and the ultimate capture? A footnote at this point (by way of clarification) might be appropriate.
  • Added a bit more on this. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nevertheless, the location was chosen because of its distance from the main Japanese concentrations around Buka and Buin, which would help to avoid a protracted battle ...". Just finished saying these were the only landing beaches? The location afforded an anchorage and a landing beach in a location that was defensible (for various reasons) - even though it was not ideal for airfield construction and with no alternatives! Should be reworded accordingly.
  • Reworded and moved things around a little. Please let me know if you think it needs more. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A minor tweak.

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an unclear reference to Operation Cherry Blossom, which might be clarified here.
  • Added a bit on this. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Would suggest using Bougainville campaign 1945.jpg (see Bougainville Campaign). This map shows localities on the island. It would be particularly informative and put the localities referred to in context. I trust it is an appropriate image? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I've added it in, but I was concerned about cluttering the article too much, so I removed the orbat image. Does that work? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map is more important IMO and the choice to remove is yours.

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for your time, Cinderella, I think I've dealt with this issues now. These are my edits: [7]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking good, will get back to the rest soon. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "There was actually about 65,000 Japanese on the island in November 1943." Long (p237) qualifies this figure: "... remained out of about 65,000 who had been on the island when the Americans attacked in November 1943, or had arrived soon afterwards." Battle of Koromokina Lagoon gives figures associated with the landing and further reinforcements (see Aftermath). A revised figure for the landings can be estimated by combining info from these. 700 went to Buka and only 100 survived the Battle of Koromokina Lagoon out of nearly 500 landed (use 100 or 500 - I used 100). Other landings are (about) 5700, 3600 and 6700 for my total of 16800 or 48200 immediately before the landings (if I got this right). The estimate isn't out by that much after all? This probably needs a note. The main text should not give the impression that the number was 65000 (IMO).
  • Thank for pointing this out. Morison provides a figure of 40,000 troops and 20,000 naval personnel by 1 November (for Bougainville and the outlying islands), so I've added a range to that which Long provides, and tweaked it to included the clarification that some arrived after. Also mentioned the concentration at Mosigetta. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made an edit that describes the main concetration to be at in the south. This is to avoid the appearance of a discrepeny at this point. Mosigetta does not appear on the map (nor does Kieta, but I have dealt with that by describing it as on the central east-coast). From the map in Long (p 91), Monsigetta is inland (due east) from the southern end of Empress Augusta Bay. It is about 2/3 the way north from Slaters Knoll to the RJ from the south end of the bay, where the track kinks. From Long's map, I estimate this as 12 mi (20 km) from the southern end of the bay (before it juts out to Motepuna Point). Suggest an edit to describe the location based on this: "... there were around 1,000 troops at Mosigetta. Monsigatta is [was] located [add description]." The finer points of strength should be dealt with in the next section - as it appears to be. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a description of where Mosigetta was with this edit: [8]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• " In addition, elements of the 17th Division were scheduled to reinforce Bougainville in mid-November." But played no part in the landings? Were they in place at Rabaul already? It seems curious to mention it.
  • My take is that it provides some context about Japanese intentions. Pretty sure the convoy carrying them was attacked and they only reached Rabaul after the landings at Torokina, so they played no part. Elements did later fight against the Australians in 1944-45, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the context. However, it might be clearer to indicate that these troops were still en-route to Rabaul and not available to respond to the landings? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adjusted with this edit: [9]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clarified it a bit further as it was elements of the 17th Div that conducted the counterlanding at Koromokina Lagoon on 7 November. [10]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "The main concentrations of Japanese troops were as follows: 6,000 around Buka, in northern Bougainville; 5,000 on the Shortland Islands, and between 2,000 and 3,000 around Empress Augusta Bay." This figure comes up well short? See though, Rentz (p18): "Intelligence estimated enemy strength as follows: Northern Sector (Buka area), 5,000 troops; Eastern Sector (Numa Numa-Kieta area), 5,000 troops; Ballale and adjacent islands, 3,000 troops; Shortland area, 5,000 to 6,000 troops; Southern Sector, 17,000 troops. The only enemy concentration of any strength in the Empress Augusta Bay area was estimated to be 1,000 troops at Mosigetta." and Milner (p235): "Intelligence estimated enemy strength as follows: Northern Sector (Buka area), 5,000 troops; Eastern Sector (Numa Numa-Kieta area), 5,000 troops; Ballale and adjacent islands, 3,000 troops; Shortland area, 5,000 to 6,000 troops; Southern Sector, 17,000 troops. The only enemy concentration of any strength in the Empress Augusta Bay area was estimated to be 1,000 troops at Mosigetta." I couldn't see Morrison to get more context on his figures.
  • Adjusted a bit. Please see my comment above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I have read that the total included labour and construction units which, to my understanding, were non-comatant units - unlike "combat" engineers (for want of a better term). Sorry I can't give a source ATM. Secondly, the estimates were "reasonably" close - closer than 60,000 - 65,000 v 35,000 - 44,000 suggests as one reads it (or so it appears). While Mossison quotes 60,000 at 1 Nov, Long quotes 65,000 (including landing shortly after). Morrison (p 348) reports (further?) about 16,000 (or more), mainly landing between 8-13 Nov. I can't see any reference to these landings in Rentz or Miller nor do I have access to see Morrison's sources. This 16,000 brings the figure "much" closer to the estimates, that appear to have been based on "reliable" sources (including ultra?). It is worth a little more "digging", to be sure of the figures and to reconcile the differences. Perhaps, @User:Hawkeye7 might shed some light on this? Finally, of the 60,000 odd thousand(?), only 12,000 - 15,000 are accounted for in the "major concentrations". Who is where needs to be reconciled. Miller and Rentz give figures that are consistant with the intelligence estimates, but these fall short of the 60,000 plus reported (by about 16,000)? There needs to be a clearer/more consistent explanation - either in the main text or a footnote. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Morison says 40,000 troops and 20,000 naval personnel (p. 181). It is true that many of the Japanese personnel on Bougainville were in logistical units. But it is also true that as the campaign went on, they were drafted into combat units as reinforcements. I couldn't find the 16,000 figure in Morison; he says "No Army reinforcements got into Bougainville after 1 November, except a few hundred men sent into Buka, and the only reinforcements that got through came in a few submarines and float planes." (p. 416) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Adding up the figures in the article gives ~40,000 troops, which was the Allied estimate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Checked Morison p. 348 and I also couldn't find a figure of 16,000 Japanese reinforcements over the period 8-13 Nov. The only 16,000 figure on that page that I could find was in relation to the size of the perimeter. I wonder if we are looking at different editions? On p. 349 of my edition it has "so, instead of expediting a counterattack on the Perimeter by the 15,000 or more Japanese soldiers in southern Bougainville, he [Imamura] reinforced the region up north and there awaited an attack that never came." I've added something from p. 362 about a minor effort to reinforce from southern Bougainville that was defeated in mid-December. Sorry, I'm not sure how to adjust this further beyond what Hawkeye has added here: [11]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Clarified the location of the 20,000 naval personnel also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Operation RO? Japanese defensive plan against Allied attacks on Rabaul? Since there is no link might explain? See also from [12] (p259 from[13]): "Now in response to the urgent appeals, down to Rabaul on 1 and 2 November went planes comprising the forces from four or five carriers, together with all the fighters from Ozawa's air fleet, numbering between 250 and 300 aircraft. Their arrival boosted the total forces on the four operational fields at Rabaul to nearly 550 planes, of which 390 were fighters, and out at the seaplane anchorages were 36 more float planes." From Milner, Operation RO appears to an offencive striking at the Allied LOC to delay their advance while giving the Japanese time to strengthen a reduced defensive perimiter in the SW and Cental Pacific? (see also Milner pp 212-213). Milner actually states (p248) that the carrier planes did not attack on 1 November. Text reads (suggests) as if they were not employed at all in the period 1-3 Nov. At p234 he reports: "It was Ozawa's carrier pilots who gave Kenney's men such a hard fight on 2 November." But this isn't clear as to wheter it was over Bougainville, the landings or Rabaul. At p252: "More planes from Rabaul would doubtless have come out after Merrill that day but for the Fifth Air Force's raid on the airfields, which the Japanese carrier pilots contested so hotly." Therfore, many (at least) of the carrier planes were tied up at Rabaul on 2 Nov? Started tweaking the last para but it was getting complicated. I saved it as it might be a good start.
  • @Cinderella157: G'day, can you please clarify the details of Milner? I can't seem to locate the source. The only one I can find is Victory in Papua, but that doesn't seem to be the one you are talking about. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, worked it, I think you mean Miller. Clarified a bit further based on Miller. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beat me about the head with a rubber hose and stwike me wuffly Centoowian. If I was citing a source not in the Bib, I would give more details (or should). Apologies for the scrape-marks on your scalp. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. I should have worked it out earlier but my brain wasn't working yesterday (long week at work and a crying baby on my knee). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, made an ed to clarify Op RO? The critical point now, is that Rohfleisch reports that the carrier planes didn't arrive until 1-2 Nov. Made some eds but it still needs work IAW when the planes "actually" arrived. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adjusted with this edit: [14]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rohfleisch, Kramer J. (1950). "Bougainville". In Craven, Wesley Frank; Cate, James Lea (eds.). The Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan, August 1942 to July 1944. The Army Air Forces in World War II. Vol. IV. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. OCLC 5732980. Retrieved 18 June 2017. (pp245-280) The Ref, Craven and Cate has chapters published by individual contributors. I think this is the correct citation. This is the source in the point above. This section Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, adjusted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, it's quite common for historians (including other official historians) to simply reference Craven and Cate, especially when using multiple chapters from a volume. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks, Nick. I think as I had previously included a chapter entry for another source, this hopefully makes it consistent at least with that approach. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• These are my edits: [15]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section is all resolved. I apologise for my faux pas and the 16,000 phantom troops that didn't land. The major inconsistency was resolved by identifying the number of naval personnel. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I observe that mixed cardinal points have been used to describe locations and landing on the beach - ie north and west to describe the same direction when the beach generally runs northwest to southeast?
  • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I note the inconsistent capitalisation of "the M|marines" in the article, when it is used to refer to the marine forces generically (rather than as part of the specific name of a unit). Whether it should or shouldn't be capitalised in such a case is another issue ...
  • Adjusted. I would normally use lower case, but went with uppercase as I believe that is how it was when I got to the article, so felt it best to retain the extant style. Happy to change if there is consensus, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It is a can of worms. A recent edit to MOS:CAPS says otherwise but the discussion is unresolved. You might look at it out of interest. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I note the use of AA guns against the landing craft. This is not mentioned in the "Japanese" section. It begs the question, where did they come from?
  • @Hawkeye7: The source doesn't go into much detail, I'm afraid. It just says " constant fire from enemy pill boxes, antiaircraft and machine-gun emplacements in the beachhead area" (p. 268). We could potentially add it to this sentence earlier in the article: "They were supported by a single 75 mm field gun, and several mortars" to make it "They were supported by a single 75 mm field gun, as well as several mortars, and anti-aircraft and machine-guns". Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rentz (if not Miller or both) describe the pill boxes as having 2 x MGs ea plus "normal" weapons and the 75 mm gun. "Mortars" in the article, implies to me Mdm mortars, though these might (probably) be light mortars per normal weapons. There is no mention of AA weapons. The article refers to MG and AA fire being brought to bear - more than MG AA fire? Would have thought the OHs would have mentioned? Detailing my concerns, mainly for Hawkeye. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a bit to the description, per [16]. To be honest, I don't think we will be able to reconcile the bit about the AA guns. I propose maybe changing "The unloading continued the following day under air attack and fire from Japanese machine guns and anti-aircraft guns in the beachhead area" to "The unloading continued the following day under air attack and ground fire from Japanese in the beachhead area". @Hawkeye7: Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could live with that edit. The alternative is a note ... ? Will see what Hawkeye has to say. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

          The source seems pretty clear, but the Seabees could have been mistaken. A Japanese infantry division, like its US counterpart, had no organic AA guns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

          No worries, I've made the edit now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking back (and because of the difficulties experienced landing), Miller and Rentz (both I think) note that in selecting the bay, it is an exposed beach and did not offer good anchorage. This might be worth comment in the early part of the article?
  • Added something on this now, with this edit: [17]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, How can the campaign map be modified? With a couple of references to Kieta, its location becomes pertinent. I tried to modify it with limited success, mainly because the source image is of such low resolution that added text becomes pixelated, difficult to read and "different" from original text. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was created by Spoolwhippets with the Australian battles in mind, I believe. He isn't really active, but occasionally stops by to update maps if asked. I've added something to the text to clarify where Kieta is. This map also shows it (as well as Mosigetta): [18]. I wonder if swapping the maps would work here? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would probably work better. I can't thing of any locality significant to the article that isn't identified on it? Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've left a message on image creator's talk page to see if they might be able to update the map. In the meantime, I've swapped the map out. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The replacement map also shows Koiari and Balalae Island, though the latter is spelt differently. It also shows 5 of the 6 Japanese airfields on the island. From Long's map, I believe the sixth is at Buin? Consider this done. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

• Japanese air losses were much greater if including (indirect) supporting ops such as TF 38 reportedly accounted for 30 planes Miller p 242). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added: [19] AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "crash boat" probably falls to jargon, particularly as it is not linked or explained. Might be reworded. Perhaps "ready-boat"?
  • Added a link with this edit: [20]. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The last group, having landed on the Magine Islands ...". Was this a group of barges. The preceding text suggests it was a group of troops that was destroyed by artillery?
  • Group of troops, adjusted: [21]. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "... with the 15,000 troops that were stationed in southern Bougainville." Suggest: " with the 15,000 (or more) troops that were stationed in southern Bougainville." This comes from preceding on Japanese strength that says 17,000? I don't think it needs an additional ref but you could add one if you think it does (just to be safe).
  • Adjusted: [22]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much done except for a couple of points to be resolved (above). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done this section Cinderella157 (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support @AustralianRupert and @User:Hawkeye7, I think this is good to close now. I have enjoyed working with you. I see no reason why a reviewer should, looking at this review, have no difficulty in promoting this article to FA. Having said that though, I would recuse myself from conducting such a review (partly because of a degree of involvement). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for your time with this. I will request it be closed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Morison, Samuel Eliot (1958). Pub. too early for ISBN & your isbn seems to point to a 2001 edition
  • Good catch. Checked my edition and updated the dates/added an oclc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Marriott 2005 in notes but not refs
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rottman, Gordon (2002b) in refs but not notes. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for these comments, Lingzhi, I think I've addressed them now. These are my changes: [23]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.