Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Tassafaronga

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 18:19, 2 May 2008.

Battle of Tassafaronga

Respectfully nominate this article about a World War II Pacific War naval battle. The article passed an A-class review [1] with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lookin' good. I support the FA candidacy. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What makes the following reliable sources?
- http://www.combinedfleet.com/
http://www.combinedfleet.com/takana_t.htm current ref 2 and 35 are lacking publisher and last access date.

All other links worked and checked out fine for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CombinedFleet.com is administered by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully, the authors of the book Shattered Sword, which was one of the primary sources used in Wikipedia's Battle of Midway article, which is featured. Also, they list the sources used for the information on their website here and here. Those two lists are very credible and authoritative, you may recognize some of the titles since I used some of the same books for this article. I added a full author's name and date to the two web citations. No publisher is listed that I could find on the website. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher would be CombinedFleet.com then, I'd think. I'm leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of your paragraphs have only one citation. That could be very problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla acutally incorpoarted multiple books into one citation, so the paras are actually from multiple books. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Some editors like to place the citations throughout the text and some like to combine them at the end of the paragraph. I'm in the latter camp. The last 11 articles that I successfully nominated for FA were cited in the same manner by placing all of the citations in a single footnote at the end of each paragraph. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that may cause some problems and I would question those FAC reviews for not having the citations split. At least have them with separate number pipings so that people can tell that there are multiple citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our best writing will combine and collate several sources, without necessarily attributing each word to a specific source (one word may be supported by two sources, the next by a different two). So here. Please chill. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Image:Damages New Orleans Tassafaronga.jpg and Image:Survivors on PT boat after Tassafaronga.jpg need verifiable sources per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the sourcing with both those images, but also replaced one of them with another that I thought was more dramatic. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
- open fire with guns. Is this redundant? (I auppoae handguns could be meant, but if so, please specify and explain.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- often mistakenly called Bull If you mean it was a play on his first name, say so; if you mean that the sources that call Halsey that are mistaken, provide sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I clarified, "with guns" to differentiate from opening fire with torpedoes. Nevertheless, I went ahead and removed the "with guns" from the sentence.
  - I removed the "Bull" footnote. Cla68 (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support My first reaction was "There's no references!" Then, I noticed how one reference tag marked an entire paragraph. Honestly, you guys did a good job; I could never flip through pages of a book and individually finding each page number, author, etc. The article itself is really nicely written as well. Good job! --haha169 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have one reservation: I am not really comfortable with combinedfleet.com being the only source for the very important statistic of the Japanese casualty number, especially as no source is cited there. Aside from that one issue, I think this is a great article. I gave it a quick copyedit, but changes were minimal; it's very well written and referenced. Maralia (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits to improve the article. I added more sources to the combinedfleet.com footnote [2]. Cla68 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the added sources on that statement - I noticed that the ja.wikipedia article only said that 33 survived, so I figured there was more to the story. Maralia (talk) 21:29, 1 May 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.