« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of the Hongorai River

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

Battle of the Hongorai River (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another battle of the final stages of the Second World War on Bougainville. This one was part of the Australian drive south towards the Japanese strong hold around Buin. I took this one through GAN nearly six years ago and recently revisited it after getting Karl James' 2012 book out of the library. I would like to improve the article further so I have put it up for A-class review. Thanks to all who stop by. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Bougainville_campaign_1945.jpg: third source link is dead
• File:F4U-1_Corsairs_of_26_Squadron_RNZAF_in_flight_1945.jpeg: second source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nikki, I've updated the link for the first one, and replaced the second image as unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an archive version for the Corsair image. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Okay, so I am coming at this article as a complete layman to the theatre. Overall, the article is good and meets most of the A-Class criteria. However, a few tweaks are needed:EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ranks need wiki-linking
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strategic situation: Where is Bougainville? Why did the Americans hand over the area to the Australians (I am of the understanding that the area was a bit of a 'backwater', and the Americans handed over such areas to the Aussies in order to concentrate their own troops for the more important sectors, is that part of the story here)? Why is this island important? Why was it not just bypassed and cut off?
  • Added a bit to try to clarify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "the number of Japanese alive": a nitpick I know, but this "alive" really necessary here?
  • Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "as well as affording them protection against further counter-attacks": what counterattacks had taken place before the planned assault?
  • the counterattacks in November 1943 and March 1945, mentioned now. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Following the Battle of Slater's Knoll ... shorten their supply lines.": So the Australians are already on the island, when did this happen? Was this part of the American handover mentioned in the previous section?
  • Tried to clarify this a bit more. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note 1 and Note 2 seem to contradict one another
  • Adjusted the second note slightly. One refers to overall strength in the area, as opposed to troops directly facing the Australians. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 7th brigade's 9th Battalion patrolling the Huio River: What does this have to do with the 57th/60th Infantry Battalion not being able to join the 15th Brigade Group?
  • Essentially the 9th had to remain instead of being relieved with the rest of the 7th. Tried to clarify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not familiar with Japanese nomenclature, so is "4th Field Heavy Artillery Regiments" a typo?
  • Yes, it seemed wrong to me, too, but that is how Tanaka describes the unit. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Advance to the Hongorai section: the opening seems confusing, especially in regards to the 57th/60th. Was the battalion on Commando road on 17 April per the initial disposition information, or only after 3 May? The article states the Australians employed a different set of tactics by attacking with two battalions, yet the second forward battalion (the 57th/60th) did not arrive until about two weeks later, so the same tactics of a one battalion frontage was used?
  • G'day, I've checked the source and that is how James describes it, but I think you are right. There seems to be a lack of clarity in the way James describes the situation. I've tried to make it a bit clearer that the 24th and 58th/59th moved together in mid-April, while the 57th/60th began moving in early May. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "an artillery which fired over 700 shells": missing word?
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• You may want to fix the wiktionary redirect for 'tactical assembly area'
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Heavy bombardment of Egan's Ridge ... Mivo Rivers.": Run on sentence, can this be broken up and reworded slightly?
  • Split. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Australians had lost 13 killed and 64 wounded.": drop 'had'?
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• " relieved by the Brigadier Noel Simpson's 29th Brigade in early July": drop 'the'
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not think that this is necessarily needed in this article, however it does have me curious. My own reading on Matilda tanks (from the fighting in the desert) was that the standard armament was a machine gun and a 2 pounder gun only issued with AP rounds, and close support tanks equipped with howitzers only capable of firing (or only equipped with) smoke shells. With the article detailing these tanks tearing up the jungle and knocking out guns and pillboxes, were the ones employed by the Australians equipped or armed differently?
  • I believe some had howitzers (Long p. 184); during the description of the fighting at Slater's Knoll, James (p. 206) says they fired high explosive shells, but not what they were armed with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EnigmaMcmxc: G'day, thanks for these comments. These are my edits: [1]. Please let me know if you think it needs more. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • All tool checks ok - no dabs, ext links check out, citation check tool reveals no errors, no repeat links, Earwig tool is down at the moment.
  • One image is missing alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency with the rest (File:Australian 57-60th Inf Bn Crossing the Hongorai River 1945 (AWM image 092280).jpg) - suggestion only, not an ACR req.
  • Missing word here I think: "The initial phase saw the Australians towards the Hongorai River" (after "Australians").
  • Repetitive prose here: "...The initial phase saw the Australians towards the Hongorai River. Following the end of the initial..." (initial x 2).
  • "With hostilities coming to a close the Japanese began harassing..." The belligerents at the time would not have know that the war would end when it did so I wonder if this wording is a little loose and wise after the fact?
  • Perhaps mention that much of the Australian force was made up of Militia / CMF?
  • Some readers might not know what "proving operations" are? Is there anything we could link it to?
  • "two and a half hours" - should this be hyphenated?
  • "...which they found to be heavily mined and booby trapped, which had to be cleared by engineers and assault pioneers..." perhaps consider tweaking, for instance "...which they found to be heavily mined and booby trapped, and had to be cleared by engineers and assault pioneers..."
  • Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, thanks for your time. I think I've address your points. These are my edits: [2]. Please let me know if you think it needs any more work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]