Talk:Battle of the Eastern Solomons

Battle Map and Featured Article (FA) Plans

I've been trying to replace the old U.S. Navy battle map for this article with a self-made map using "Campaign Cartographer" (CC2). Unfortunately, the notoriously user-unfriendly CC2 program is resisting my best efforts to get a map done. I'll keep working on it but will try to see, after one final copyedit, if the article can pass FA review as is. Cla68 12:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

POV?

I altered "low on fuel" to "claiming a need to fuel". His low fuel state isn't established fact, & accepting his claim uncritically is, I'd say, POV--or naive. IMO, it smacks of cowardice, & FJF did end up relieved after a similar "need to fuel". Trekphiler 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As reflected in the footnotes for the Battle of Savo Island, several historians have indeed asserted that Fletcher's statement that his ships were low on fuel on August 9 was a dubious claim. However, the source I cited for this article (Hammel) didn't go into whether or not the claim was dubious or not. Thus, to say, "claiming a need to fuel" might be asserting something that the cited source for that sentence doesn't say. I don't think it's a really big deal, but, the text in the article needs to reflect exactly what the specific cited source for that passage is stating. Also, the question as to whether Fletcher's withdrawal from the battle area was cowardice or a prudent decision to protect the few remaining U.S. aircraft carriers is still a matter of debate among historians. Cla68 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

"Claimed" sounds like a lie was made. The landing was a success and the strategic carriers were withdrawn out of range of attack by land based, multi-engine, torpedo bombers. Fletcher asked to be met by a tanker, he would have asked for replacement fighters if any had been available. The task force had been in combat and of course needed replenishment and replacements. Mention of cowardice in your remarks is offensive.216.203.108.114 (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding the Chitose

At the moment there's a sentence that states that five TBF Avengers from the USS Saratoga scored near-hits on Chitose which damaged the ship. However, when I click on the reference tag that takes me to the bottom of the page, (there seems to be two sources listed under this tag actually) there's a link to the "Chitose tabular record of movement" page from combinedfleet.com which relates a similar account but states that the planes which attacked were SBD Dauntlesses rather than Avengers. Now I don't have access to the other source (or any other source for that matter) so I don't want to go ahead and edit this just yet, but perhaps someone else can verify which is correct? —Masterblooregard (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's SBDs. Avengers were torpedo planes, which don't generally score near-misses. --Yaush (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmk, "Carrier Clash" by Eric Hammel says that it was SBDs (also from USS Saratoga) so I went ahead and changed the sentence and reference. There were five Avengers accompanying the SBDs, but they didn't attack Chitose and didn't cause the damage. The bit in the reference tag regarding the Chitose being towed back for repairs I assume is taken from the combinedfleet.com link, so I left that there —Masterblooregard (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Eastern Solomons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060323031827/http://www.ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=8 to http://www.ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Quick check of old FA

I read this through, did a c/e and checked the images as part of WP:URFA/2020, and it looks satisfactory. While I could make a few nitpicks about citation and source formatting, and it could do with a check to see if there has been any new publications with fresh takes on the battle, I don't consider it merits a FAR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Opposition to refactoring References & Footnotes?

I'd like to refactor the References section to eventually look something like Operation Barbarossa § References, where the H2 References section contains the following H3's: Footnotes, Citations, Bibliography, and Further reading. I think in most cases, the paragraph-long explanatory footnotes would be clearer when set off by the typical {{efn}}/{{notelist}} numbering ([a], [b], etc.). That way, a reader will have a clearer indication that explanatory text might provide further insight, rather than giving them no indication that the note is not just a reference.

To be clear, I'm primarily motivated to separate the (would-be) efns from the refs/sfns. As an example, the 1st <ref> note (re: 176 aircraft in the infobox) would be converted to {{efn}}, and its {{harvnb|Frank|...}} would become a <ref> itself.

Out the gate, I'm not convinced every single "paragraph-long ref" should be converted blindly, because the {{harvnb}}s at the beginning of each one may or may not support what the text of the note says, so certainly some reference checking would have to occur before those are swapped over. But I think maybe 1/3 of them are pretty much ready to become {{efn}}s pretty quickly.  — sbb (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Defective sentence, section History: 3rd para. beginning with "between 15 and 20 August", next to last sentence has fragment, "and in the attrition"

I can't fix this, because I don't know what the author wants to say. Sentence is incomplete Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Should read Background, not history Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Three hits?

"Initially, the lead D3A dive bomber, piloted by Petty Officer Kiyoto Furuta, scored a hit with a 250-kilogram (551 lb) semi-armor-piercing, delayed-action "ordinary" bomb that penetrated the flight deck near the aft elevator and passed through three decks before detonating below the waterline, killing 35 men and wounding 70 more. Incoming seawater caused Enterprise to develop a slight list, but it was not a major breach of hull integrity.

Just 30 seconds later, the next D3A dive bomber, piloted by Petty Officer Tamotsu Akimoto, planted its 241-kilogram (531 lb) high-explosive "land" bomb only 15 feet (4.6 m) away from where the first bomb hit. The resulting detonation ignited a large secondary explosion from one of the nearby 5-inch (127 mm) guns' ready powder casings, killing 35 members of the nearby gun crews and starting a large fire.

About a minute later, at 16:46, a third and last bomb (also a 241-kilogram (531 lb) "land" bomb), dropped by Petty Officer Kazumi Horie, hit Enterprise on the flight deck forward of where the first two bombs hit. This bomb exploded on contact, creating a 10-foot (3 m) hole in the deck but causing no further damage."

This is how the attack on Enterprise is described on the article, yet viewing footage of the attack shows only two hits in the span of this time frame. Thoughts? Sormando (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• The footage started after the first bomb had already hit the carrier. It penetrated the deck at the forward-right corner of the aft elevator (i.e., the corner of the elevator on the left side and closer to the camera from the camera's perspective). The two seen in the footage were the high-explosive type designed to explode on the surface, thus you can clearly see their effects visually. On the other hand, the first one was the armor-piercing type so it went deep inside and its visual effect, i.e., smoke, is not (yet) evident (and would be then overshadowed by the following two anyway). The entry hole of the first bomb is relatively small and clean but when looking at the footage closely one can still spot it. Path-x21 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)