Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

response to comments

Hi, AustralianRupert, Anotherclown and btphelps. Thank you for your responses.

First of all, I must say that I have found the user support for making citations to be singularly unhelpful. I have struggled to make sense of it and have solved the problem (partly) by mimicing and not through any clear understanding as a result of consulting the tutorial. The tool bar supports the ref system and not the snf system. It is certainly not user friendly and I wouldn't know where to begin to address this.

1. I have removed Australian Action at Buna.
2. I have removed the capitalisation of headings except for what i think are proper nouns.
3. I have change the date format to remove ordinals. However, I have retained ordinals where the date is orphaned from the month as I didn't see any guidance on this and I didn't seem sensible to remove. So you will see on the 20th but on 21 January.
4. I have changed almost all of the references to snf format. But there are still a couple that may be problematic. Specifically those which are cited in a reference and should not be changed to remove the cited in. There are also some web addresses that played up and references in footnotes, which I understand can be a problem. Some of the ones not in snf format are from the original article. Any help to sort these out would be accepted.
5. I have absolutely no idea what to do with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js
6. I have read WP:LEAD. I understand that the number of paragraphs is a guide that varies with the size of the article and that 4 paragraphs is not an absolute maximum. In this case, particularly given the size, I would understand that 6 paragraphs would not be unacceptable, particularly when one is a two line single sentance. I have played around with it and could make it 4 but I think it looses something by doing so. It seems rather arbitary if 4 paragraphs is ok but the same text in 6 paragraphs isn't.
7. You may know that TOC left on the Battle of Buna–Gona has recently been changed to TOC by Ww2censor who makes the comment: "TOC left is discouraged - Is there a good reason it is being used?" To do so would leave a large white space, which I think is a good reason.
8. With regard to a Prelude section, I have read Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide and understand that this is a suggested format. The sections preceding the battle are thematic and not what would be called, a prelude. It would be a redundant additional level (with no text at that level) and a title inconsistent with the content.
9. I have read WP:ARTICLESIZE and one comment it makes is not to be in too much of a hurry to cut it down. I acknowledge that it is long. I couldn't do a readable prose check. At this stage, I wouldn't know where to begin to create sub-articles.
10. The TOC is big I acknowledge but I don't know that it would benefit by cutting out the second level items. It is only, I think about 7 items longer compared with about 35 already.
11. As for rank, I have used the MOS style for these. I think that reading Lt Gen 5 times in full in a paragraph is a bit over done and I would rater not write General as a short version. (let me know if any slipped through)
12. I have had a bit more of a look at the referencing. There is always room for improvement.

1. I have not referenced the lead as it is an abstract. As such, it doesn't (or shouldn't) make any statements that are not addressed in the body.
2. There are some paragraphs that are introductions where the points are made in a subsequent paragraph.
3. How do you go with material that comes from another page that is effectively referenced by the link and there isn't a specific reference in that linked page - such as the date of another battle? Is the link a sufficient reference?
4. Did you see note? 14. Compiled ostensibly from: McCarthy, 1959; Milner, 1957; and, Center of Military History, 1990. Other sources are specifically cited. This appears at the start of the Battle section. These references follow chronologically fairly well for each of the fronts. This is a reference for the events of the battle. Significant matters should have been specifically reference.
5. There are a number of things I could use help with finding references. Some of these are in the original and it is not just a case of them having been separated from a suitable reference in the source.
6. Can I suggest that, if any of you find something needing a citation that you mark it using the ref system tags and place two question marks (??) inside the markers. I use these as an editing guide because they are easy to search for and shouldn't appear together in normal text.
7. As a comment, the article is about twice the length but has nearly three times the number of discrete references as the original.

Anyhow, I appreciate your comments and interest. Throwing it back for further discussion.

Regards

Cinderella157 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your continued efforts. I have a few more comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• the date format is still not right in places. For example "8 March, 1942" --> "8 March 1942" per WP:DATESNO
• regarding User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js, you install it into your monobook (User:Cinderella157/monobook.js). You can see how I've done it with mine here: User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js. Installing this script will help you highlight the large number of "harvn errors" on the page (these are essentially html coding issues);
• regarding the lead, I'll leave it up to you, but from my experience reviewing at WP:FAC and WP:MHACR, four is the limit and it wouldn't be hard to make what you have there four paragraphs;
• the list of units could be split into an order of battle page. For example see Battle of Milne Bay order of battle;
• the "Quoted in blah" citations can be presented the same as sfn cites by using the {{harvnb}} in text. For instance "<ref>Quoted in {{harvnb|McCarthy|1959|p=516}}.</ref>"
• you are correct, the lead doesn't need citations so long as the information is referenced in the body. All paragraphs in the body should be fully cited, though, regardless of whether citations are provided in subsequent paragraphs. The readers should not have to go searching for the references. The bare minimum should be a single citation at the end of each paragraph or after each quote;
• the section on the US 32nd Division should probably be a subsection of the Allied forces section;
• comments like "The same could be said in the case of the 32nd Division." sound like editorialising which Wikipedia should not do. If it is the opinion of an author, it should be attributed. For example, "According to author John Smith, blah blah...";
• I don't think sentences/paragraphs like these are necessary in this article: "The role of field artillery (and fire support in general) in the attack is to destroy...";
• the various sections on artillery, armour, air support, naval support etc. appear to be focused on the Allied situation only. If this is the case, they should probably also be grouped as subsections of the Allied forces section;
• where possible, avoid using the word "enemy" unless in a quote;
• avoid short stubby paragraphs if possible;
• internal links should not be relied upon in the place of references;
• Citation 15 "Japanese History/World War II" --> is this user generated content, i.e written by Wikipedia editors? If so, I'm afraid it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS and shouldn't be used as a reference in Wikipedia;
• Citation # 28 "??Popondetta" seems to be missing something;
• "Compiled ostensibly from..." not sure I've ever seen this used at A-class or FAC. I'd be surprised if it wasn't questioned, but it might be acceptable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Disease

Hi btphelps,

In regard to your question who

I have confirmed that the cited reference does not specifically attribute this to a third party. The statement is made by the author cited, Bergerund. I have added a note to give further weight to this statement.

It is estimated that between 85 – 95% of all soldiers in the area carried malaria during the course of the battle

Note 1. Brig Disher was the Deputy Director Medical Services, New Guinea Force from late November 1942. At the end of December, he remarked in his diary, "that he thought that 100 per cent of the men at Milne Bay and in the Buna area had been infected." By the end of January 1943 the malarial rate for operational areas rose to a peak equivalent to 2,496 per 1,000 per year, or nearly 250%. This would include relapses at an average of two per man. The 163rd Infantry Regiment arrived at Sanananda from early January. It had deployed from Australia in late December, where it had not been exposed to the risk of maleria.

Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of headings

Hi,

"I would look to reduce the number of headings proposed. Regards," AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This was said in regard to the proposed outline.

Does this apply to the draft? In which case, there is a conflict of opinion. Need a consensus before I go breaking it up or not.

Also, don't think Disease sits well as a sub-section of Climate and terrain. Comments pls.

Cinderella157 (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Update on comments

Hi and thank you for your comments.

Firstly, I welcome you putting comments/questions into the text but I would ask you to please include the double question marks(ie ??), either in brackets or as a comment or something that delineates it from the text. I will assume that where they are in ref marks, you are asking for a citation.

I acknowledge that my writing style can be conservative and circumspect. Writing something such as this in a 'very' active voice does not sit well with me. It is also difficult to see some things that might be clear from a different perspective. I have looked at offered changes. I have either accepted them, modified them where I thought they might be further improved or changed them back, where I was uncomfortable with the offered change or thought it was not consistent with the intended meaning. I do not see that these actions mean that the matter is closed but is part of the collaborative process. Hope this is ok?

1. I have removed the comma where they occur between a month and a year. I won't say this is perfect, I may have missed a couple. Please fix any isolated style issues such as these if I missed them.
2. Will leave User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js for now until we get closer to a finished product, or I have nothing to do.
3. Will ponder the matter of the lead for now (not ignoring it). Remind me if I forget.
4. Regarding an order of battle page. I acknowledge the comment. I would prefer to leave that as a future development.
5. Still to try the "Quoted in".
6. Using snf in a note doesn't work. If you know how to do it, put an example in the text and I will mimic. Let me know.
7. Note comment about sub sections of Allied forces - to do list
8. "The same could be said in the case of the 32nd Division." - To me, this is a clear implication but still worth stating - perhaps in a better way - suggestions?
9. The section on Artillery is a theme. It is about the role of artillery in battle and how the artillery was and wasn't able to fulfill this role. It is also about the lessons learn't so that artillery (and other fires) could fulfill its role in future battles in the theatre. I think this particular case is necessary. Other cases may not be but there should be sufficient background for some one 'new' to interpret to critical issues or at least push them in the direction to find out more. This battle isn't just about bullets, bombs and seizing ground. The war in the Pacific required a paradigm shift in doctrine. This and Guadalcanal were where this was realized and the starting point for its development.
10. Think I got all the enemies.
11. Noted about links - may need help getting some references to substitute.
12. Noted about short paragraphs. Tried moving things around to fix one but it created more problems with continuity than it fixed. Will look to address though.
13. Noted - citation 15.  ??Popondetta was a note to self and a link to that page, which was the source.
14. "Compiled ostensibly from..." - have a look at the Warren front section. I have fully (I think) cited it, except for the topography (1st 3? paragraphs, which are a bit more problematic). Doing this added about 20 discrete citations. I make the distinction in using this device between what is simply a sequence of events and what are critical facts. More comments please. Can we get a consensus or, if not, a definitive answer?
15. Wiktionary and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/porter both give porter as a verb, and portered would be the simple past tense and past participle of porter. I had used it to be more pc than saying, carried by natives! The proposed alternative did not convey this meaning. Other comments pls?
16. I note that I have used native in one other place at least. Better alternatives, comments welcome.
17. "As a corps scale engagement, [it is reasonable that (delete??)] there would be additional corps assets and army level assets allocated in direct support, increasing the total of guns even further." I don't have a specific reference but I have seen enough examples of this being applied - let me know if you think this is wrong in fact. Can anybody help. I don't want to totally rearrange the section just to get around this. Help pls??
18. I think there are different views on what the Manual of style says about abbreviations and what this means in this context?
19. Should we go to three columns of citations. Could somebody pls do that? Comments?

Thanks again, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your continued efforts. A couple of follow up points:

• per your comment above regarding the use of the sfn template in a note, here is an example: [1]. I also switched to three columns with the same edit.
• regarding date format issues, I made a couple of adjustments with this edit: [2] There are still examples that should be fixed
• in regards to the battle honours section, I think Maitland should be cited here, as his work is definitive in this area, IMO. The ref is p. 142 of the work that is already listed in the References section. In addition, this note in the article concerns me, and I think it should be removed: "The AWM refers to a sixth subsidiary honour, which is 'Buna Village' (Personal communication user:Cinderella157, AWM dated 13 Nov 2014)." This is original research, which Wikipedia policy prevents us from using in writing articles on the site. Maitland does not mention this honour at all, and unless it is mentioned in a published source, I don't believe it should be mentioned.
• be careful of the language you use. For instance, constructions like "It should be realised that..." should be avoided per WP:EDITORIALIZING.
• instead of "portered", perhaps you could say "carried by Papuan porters"?
• be careful of how the images are placed. As per the guidance at WP:IMAGELOCATION, the text should not be sandwiched between images like it is in many places
• point of view: when saying things like "It was estimated that..." you should identify who estimated this. For instance, "Allied intelligence reports estimated that..."
• I think in a few places we are getting into WP:SYNTH territory with some of the analysis. I might be wrong, but please be mindful of this when you are linking sources and arguments together.
• "In probability, the initial and maximum strength of the Japanese forces at the beachheads lies somewhere between the lower figure of 6,500 and the upper figure of nearly 12,000..." Is there a source for this? If so, you should attribute it. For instance, "According to Smith, in probability..."
• instead of "natives", perhaps you could substitute "local Papuans" or "the local population"?
• Anyway, that is it from me for a while. I will take another look maybe tomorrow depending on how the day goes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stuff so far. Hopefully I now have almost all of the date stuff sorted.

1. Regarding the battle honours. The AWM page for the battle honour Buna-Gona (which is cited) lists six subsiduary honours. I could only find 5 (surprise) so I contacted the AWM and I am reporting the response. The response refers to (http://www.awm.gov.au/firstopac/bin/cgi-jsp.exe/shelf1.jsp?recno=24571&userId=&catTable= )as their source, which gives official battle names. The personal communication referenced is not original research on my part but is a verifiable source that serves to clarify an apparent inconsistancy in information provided from an authoritive source.

1. The problem with the "it is estimated" is that the sources (I have found) don't quote who did the estimation but it is clear, looking at the material overall that, that is what it is. This then leads to the problem of strength. I acknowledge (with more knowledge) that "In probability" may be viewed as original research. At the time I wrote it, I didn't, since to me, research would attempt to determine a figure or ascribe weight to a figure. The problem is, how to deal with this. I have pointed out some of the lack of specificity in the Japanese sources. I could provide more peripheral information which muddies the waters even more. To present the material would nearly be another page full or more. A Japanese source suggests that the force at Sanananda immediately prior to the fall was over 4000. What to do? Do I just take out the sentance or is there a way to say it that would leave a reader with the same impression but in an acceptable way?

RegardsCinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I'm sorry but I do not believe you are correct. Citing personal correspondence is original research as per WP:OR and it fails WP:V. You need to provide reliable published sources, not unpublished personal correspondence. I would suggest removing "The AWM refers to a sixth subsidiary honour, which is 'Buna Village' (Personal communication user:Cinderella157, AWM dated 13 Nov 2014)..." and replacing it with "The Battles Nomenclature Committee lists a sixth subsidiary honour called "Buna Village"...). Doing this makes it clear that it is not original research.

Regarding your second point, it is difficult to suggest an approach without seeing what you are seeing, but I believe the way to achieve this is to use attribution of your source in text, i.e. "According to Smith...blah blah" then provide a brief summary. If multiple sources are used to arrive at the estimates, you could say something like: "Estimates of X vary across various sources. Smith provides a figure of blah while Jones states that there were around blah at the time...etc."

Anyway, I'm taking a break from this draft for a week to let the others chime in if they want to. Good luck, I think you are heading in the right direction. I will try to come back next weekend and take another look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert,

I do very much appreciate your advice, your contributions and your efforts overall. Regarding the battle honours, I am not quite comfortable with your proposed solution, to the extent that I still see some holes, which could become mute if the AWM amends their website. The problem is the inconsistency with such an authoritative source. Most of the six AWM web pages refer to there being six subsidiary honours. I had cited the personal communication believing it was verifiable since the question could be asked again by anyone and receive the same answer - ie, the same as going to any published source.

"I have asked my colleagues for help with your inquiry regarding the Buna-Gona subsidiary honours. We believe the sixth honour from the list is Buna Village. This information was obtained from the most recent edition of this publication: [3]

I will alert the History Section and the Webteam to see if we can update the entry."

My understanding is that the Battlefield Nomenclature Committee assigned the official names of battles etc. It does not list battle honours but provided the official names of engagements used on honours conferred for a particular battle. So, to say that the BF nomenclature Committee lists a sixth subsiduary honour doesn't sound quite right nor does it clearly explain that this is the source of the inconsistancy, which bothered me for some time. I am not attached to the citation but to an accurate way of resolving the inconsistency for others facing the same dilemma.

The problem with strength gets very complicated. I have quoted some main figures a,b,c and d with corresponding citations. Then you see figures x and y which should give z, a number that should correspond with one of the earlier figures, and other tit bits of information which should allow a reader to arrive at some understanding. The problem is not so much what is know but what is not known. Are you confused? Put together 800-900 at Gona, 1600 at the Sanananda track and 2000 at Buna, of which a number escaped. Add that to 4000 at Sanananda at the end (probably not including the Sanananda Track). Add to this, a number of other qualifying comments from a variety of sources and another totally different set of figures to consider. Presenting all of this could easily become long and complicated. To say that 'probably the figure lays somewhere between the upper and lower limits' was intended as a concise way of expressing all of this and not as original research - even though I now see that it could be perceived as such. It can be a fine and difficult line. Is there a simple, acceptable way to say this? Have I presented (in the draft) sufficient information to reasonably lead one to the same sort of conclusion? If this is the case, then the statement might be redundant and the simple solution would be to remove it?

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

New Draft Revision

Hello to all that have an interest in this significant battle. You will be aware of my earlier post Talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#Improving structure and content where I provided a critique of the existing article. Among other issues, was the structure of the existing article. I had hoped that this might generate interest in a collaborative effort to improve the article but instead, I found that the baton was firmly passed to me. As a newbie, I have struggled with the magnitude of this task but I have stepped up to the mark and run with it.

I am pleased to announce my draft revision of the Battle of Buna-Gona and I am throwing it to the wolves (just hope I haven't stumbled at the start).

While this revision is a significant change from the current version, I wish to acknowledge that it has been built upon a strong foundation provided by previous contributors. Much of the original work has been retained within a revised structure.

I have chosen not to deal with the conduct of the battle on each of its fronts as separate, discrete sections (eg Warren Force, Sanananda Track/Road, Gona etc). Instead, I have dealt with the battle at the different locations in a way that is (semi)contiguous in time over the whole battlefield. The opening section Battle, is provided as a summary of the overall battle on all fronts.

The first question for discussion is (notwithstanding any changes required): "is there agreement that this revision should be adopted".

While I am sure that you may wish to qualify any comments here, can specific editorial/editing comments please be made on the draft's talk page (copying them to that page from here if necessary) - I would hate to loose track of things.

If there is some sort of consensus, albeit qualified, I guess we can then work up the draft to address any issues that are raised (or throw it away).

Regards

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Should have been new section Cinderella157 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday - good to see someone working on an important article like this. Looks like you have made quite an effort so far! I have a few observations for possible improvements to the draft:

1. The structure of the draft could probably be improved using the standard structure for battle articles (background, prelude, battle, aftermath as 2nd level headings per WP:MILMOS/C) - whilst you have a background, battle and aftermath sections, you have a large number of thematic sections as 2nd level headings which are probably more appropriate as 3rd level headings in a prelude section);
2. The draft is very detailed, perhaps almost to the point of being a little too long in places (pls see WP:ARTICLESIZE) - for instance some sections could probably be reduced to more of a summary and separate articles created (for instance a separate ORBAT article is very often used - some examples include: Battle of Milne Bay order of battle, Order of battle for the Gallipoli Campaign and Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan);
3. The date format is a bit off in places (for instance you often use ordinals when they shouldn't be used) - pls see MOS:DATEFORMAT);
4. TOC left is not commonly used, and at any rate the TOC is intimidatingly long (I'd suggest limiting to only 2nd level headings using {{TOC limit|2}} - this is my opinion only and others may well disagree);
5. The current article consistently uses the same reference format throughout (the SFN format) so I think any replacement should use this format for consistency (it also allows information to be moved / copy pasted through out an article without causing errors);
6. We generally don't use abbreviations for rank, probably best to write them in full.
7. Your lead is 6 paragraphs; however, by policy it should be no more than four per WP:LEAD (the current article is admittedly also 6 so is also incorrect);
8. There is quite a bit of information in your draft which is currently unreferenced, whereas all paragraphs in the current version have citations. I think you will probably need to ensure your draft is fully referenced before we consider moving it across.

Anyway hopefully these suggestions help. Happy to discuss anything of course. Once these points have been addressed I'll read through the draft in full and let you know what I think. Anotherclown (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I've added some comments to the draft article's talk page here: Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rupert's suggestions. Use the standard structure for a battle article and any revisions should not reduce the number and quality of the citations. Instead of tackling the entire article, you may want to consider revising in parts by first tackling the background, then the battle itself, etc. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

AustralianRupert, Anotherclown and btphelps. Thank you for your responses. Please see Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#response to comments Cinderella157 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree reorganization of the article is needed but use caution in deleting such things as that "unreferenced quote" you mentioned over on Talk:Operation Lilliput and other statements in paragraphs with an end cite. I've been driven to clutter up paragraphs with endless cites due to people seemingly unaware that end paragraph cites are also valid and avoid clutter. Earlier I did not and I think other editors wrote for readability rather than defense from endless challenges. If you are going to tear into what you think are unreferenced statements then get the references. Not all are web pages. Anyone needing Masterson's monograph can go here: for 8 PDF files. Anyone doing work dealing with SWPA logistics needs a copy. It is a fairly frequent cite in the "Green Books" dealing with Army transport in SWPA. I'd also suggest the Second World War Official Histories at AWM. The two big allies there could be amazingly self centered at times writing the history. From some of the U.S. Army books one wonders if the Australians were about very much and sometimes the flip side applies. Palmeira (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese cannibalism

When I first learned that the Japanese engaged in cannibalism, I too at first assumed it was only a last resort. But if you look at the sources closely, you will see that the Japanese didn't just practice cannibalism in the late stages of the battle when they were starving. For example, the Australians found evidence when they recaptured the Kokoda Track Station that the Japanese had left behind plenty of rice—along with the cannibalized remains of Allied prisoners.

Many reports of the incidence of cannibalism state that the Japanese only ate prisoners "as a last resort", but this isn't the actual case, and in fact was not unusual among Japanese forces, though little discussed due to people's aversion to the topic. See Japanese war crimes on cannibalism.

For example, see these sources:

• Murder and cannibalism on the Kokoda Track
• How I remember it
• War Crimes in WWII: Japanese Practised Cannibalism on Indian Soldiers
• Japanese Cannibalism in New Guinea
• Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II
• The Architect of Kokoda: Bert Kienzle - The Man Who Made the Kokoda Track

Your draft significantly waters down the current article's description of Japanese cannibalism as noted, for example, in the current article's [Battle_of_Buna%E2%80%93Gona#Aftermath |aftermath]. Your draft ought to accurately reflect this.

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 19:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

From the original.

In the Japanese positions they located the bodies of Allied soldiers who had been captured and found evidence of cannibalism. During the prior attempt to capture Port Moresby over the Kokoda Track, and during their defence of Buna-Gona, the Japanese regularly practiced cannibalism.[notes 7][104] None of the Allied soldiers taken captive during the entire Kokoda Track campaign and the fight for Buna-Gona were allowed to live, and a number of those who were captured had been tortured, used for bayonet practice, or eaten.[1]

Allied troops found evidence of cannibalism of both Japanese and Allied soldiers in captured Japanese positions.[115][116]

From the rewrite.

There was widespread evidence of the Japanese defenders cannibalising the dead.

There was widespread evidence that the Japanese had resorted to cannibalising the dead to stay alive.[103][104][105][106]

I have omitted reference to atrocities that occurred on the Kokoda Track. Having said that, I would like more feedback on this matter.

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

The constant appearance of references within sentences is in my view distracting and over referencing. Readability declines without much added clarification. For example:

• It is stated in Bergerud[61] that between 85–95% of all soldiers in the area carried malaria during the course of the battle[notes 4]
• Colonel Leif Sverdrup was awarded the Silver Star[70] and the Distinguished Service Medal[71] for his efforts in reconnaissance and construction of air strips in New Guinea, including those at Fasari, Embessa and Pongani.[72]

There is no reason the references cannot at the least be collected at the end of sentences. Palmeira (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also been subjected to the whims of other editors who seem to think virtually every sentence or fact needs a citation. I agree with placing references at the end of the paragraph with the caveat that if there is a specific item in the paragraph that is particularly notable or potentially controversial and debatable, place an inline citation with that fact.

@Palmeira, is there a MOS standard about placing citations? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not know of an MOS on this, I am much more interested in adding content than style with the exception of readability. Thus I consider the over citation so often seen in Wikipedia a detriment to readability. I also understand the drivers in an "encyclopedia" in which any two minute expert or lifetime scholar and specialist may contribute with zero known reputation, authority or reliability a reader may rely upon. Perhaps those of us working in special areas begin recognizing those basing edits on real and reliable sources, but the readers have no such experience. Far more detailed cites are thus the reliability and defense (sometimes slight) against "editors" that have little knowledge beyond having recently read something that may itself be near fiction. That is one reason I stay far away (usually) from articles such as USS Scorpion where there is constant referencing to popular books written by people with neither expertise nor access to the best information the Navy has on the matter—and some simply pushing their pet conspiracy speculations hoping for sensation and sales I suspect. Trying to clean up those messes is a lost cause. I have rambled, but now have changed my "style" when I start or completely revise a stub relating to ships. I base it largely upon those used in my library of sources—and those differ somewhat by national source. Those attempt to not clutter the internal sentence structure with cites. On this site I think an MOS might be damaging beyond a goal to cite adequately without chopping sentences into little clumps of cited words that become distractions to the idea almost the way excessive linking to every common geographical and well known other subject becomes distracting: The ship arrived in San Francisco, California at pier 7 . . . Then we have link and citation "police" with seemingly no other purpose that "edit" to such ends. My own "style" is to try to collect "facts" into a sentence for one or two cites, sometimes defensive and making for a sentence I'd otherwise not write. Thus I would suggest:

• Colonel Leif Sverdrup was awarded the Silver Star and the Distinguished Service Medal for his efforts in reconnaissance and construction of air strips in New Guinea, including those at Fasari, Embessa and Pongani.[70][71][72]

Thus the flow is not disrupted by double digit bracket cites and any reader, if interested, or revisionist editor still has their cites. My preference actually is the "Army history style"; for example Milner in Chapter X, The First Two Weeks at Buna, where the entire, fairly long opening paragraph is cited thus:

• (1) 128th Inf Jnl, Ser 70, 17 Nov 42; 3d Bn, 128th Inf, Jnl, 17 Nov 42; 32d Div Hist of Arty, Papuan Campaign; Ltr, Gen Waldron to Gen Ward, 5 Mar 51.

Then we know who Milner is and his "authority" from the Army to write a history with access to its official files. I do not know you or you me from Adam's housecat so we cannot write here in that way. Finally, since this draft is a complete revision there is an opportunity to set the style for both readability and clear citation. Palmeira (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Appreciate the comments @Palmeira. I would direct you to the version when this draft was first made 'public'(05:50, 7 November 2014) and how I had dealt with referencing the chronology of the battle (ie, that within the main heading 'Battle'). I refer to note 13.

Compiled ostensibly from: McCarthy, 1959; Milner, 1957; and, Center of Military History, 1990. Other sources are specifically cited.

This version contains about 300 discrete references. The alternative to this approach has led to doubling this number. The draft is about double the size of the original article, which has about 130 discrete references. This first draft was described as inferior because not all paragraphs had at least one reference at the end. I find this quite arbitrary. Within the text, there were instances of two consecutive paragraphs, where an idea was developed in one and concluded in another. The reference occurred in the latter and was for both. You may see some earlier discussion about references on this talk page. You might also look to the Background, where I had looked to links to support the text.

• It is stated in Bergerud[61] that between 85–95% of all soldiers in the area carried malaria during the course of the battle[notes 4]

Regarding this sentence, it was changed about 01:36, 13 November 2014 because of some comments inserted in the text.

• Colonel Leif Sverdrup was awarded the Silver Star[70] and the Distinguished Service Medal[71] for his efforts in reconnaissance and construction of air strips in New Guinea, including those at Fasari, Embessa and Pongani.[72]

Regarding this, I would have been happy to rely on the link Leif J. Sverdrup*New Guinea Campaign.

How I have approached referencing. This has been influenced by my experience, which is in the 'hard sciences'. I hate parenthetic referencing. General discussion, well accepted principles and the like are not usually referenced but critical facts such are referenced in a way which is very explicit. To say, building a motor road from Port Moresby to Buna would not, I think, require citation, but here, I feel compelled to defend this statement, even though it is virtually self-evident and accepted without question by anybody with a passing knowledge of the subject (but necessary to point out to those that don't). This, I see, is the role of peer review. Not to act as citation police but to identify where citations are reasonably needed.

As a corps scale engagement, it is reasonable that there would be additional corps assets and army level assets allocated in direct support, increasing the total of guns even further.

To me, this appeared to be a reasonable assertion generally accepted but I have felt compelled to defend it by citation.

A direct quote is referenced where it occurs. An attribution to an author occurs at the authors name. On these two points, I think we must agree to disagree. Referencing at the end of a paragraph supports either the whole paragraph but may support only the last sentence. Referencing at the end of a sentence supports what is said in the sentence but may support preceding sentences to the next previous citation, preceding sentences to the start of a paragraph or preceding paragraphs (depending on the context, such as an idea developed over more that one paragraph). Multiple citations should be consistent with each other and support the same material. Where they don't they should be placed to differentiate the differences or discussed in a footnote. This is why the Sverdrup sentence has three separated citations. To my recollection, the first two citation don't relate specifically to where and the last does not specifically relate to the decorations.

If you read this talk page, you will note that I have asked for dialogue to achieve consensus on a number of matters. I do not disagree with your general observation although, in specific cases, we might disagree. I welcome any comments and assistance.

I am loath to remove any material on a whim. That is why I made the post on the Lilliput page. I did look at Masterson. I know that my low speed satellite connection was possibly an issue but I think I put it down to the page at the time. Your web link was much better than that in the original Buna battle page. The good thing is that the issue was solved. I can also definitely appreciate some of your frustration.

I appreciate your assistance and welcome your input. I hope that this discussion might contribute to improving how things are done.

Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We probably do not disagree all that much. I do get frustrated with the need for "defensive referencing" here. The original (current) article is under referenced and I much dislike the "This article incorporates text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" (actually usually just a cut and paste copy sectionalized) for entire USS ship articles because when additional information is added (and DANFS is often a sketch) we quickly get into what-is-what questions unless one prepares by converting to paragraph references and then do as you mention (DANFS)(CITE)(DANFS).

Yes, I dislike in sentence cites, but not in the special cases you mention and agree a quote needs special handling depending on context. I think a sentence end cite is adequate for a quote embedded in a sentence entirely about the quote. A stand alone quote in a paragraph certainly needs its own cite. As for the old article containing Wilson's comment on dangerous seas I revised that article before coming to the conclusion I would pretty much have to cite every sentence to avoid well intended buy poorly informed changes.

What I do here is a spin off from my real interests that I hope clears up some nautical history among a public usually woefully ignorant or misinformed. My personal usage of Wikipedia on general subjects is slight—and almost exclusively a quick look to find new references that I really read. I consider the most valuable role of the whole thing the quick access to a collection of references for well referenced stuff here. Finally, at my last quick look, the draft here seems a definite improvement and I do not consider it at all over referenced. Palmeira (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Notes on referencing

Ok, I've gone through the article and marked a couple of places where I think further referencing is required. I'm having trouble editing the article on my computer now because of its size, so I have written down a few more sentences here that I think need notes/or references added. Happy to discuss further if you want:

• "The contribution of Papuans engaged as labourers or porters cannot be overstated" -- this is currently referenced, which is great, but it seems like editorialising. I'd suggest a slight tweak of the language to either attribute the opinion, or reduce it to simple fact. E.g "According to author John Smith, the contribution of Papuans engaged as labourers or porters cannot be overstated" or "The contribution of Papuans engaged as labourers or porters was a significant part of the Allied logistic effort" (or something similar);

Used the suggestion thanks and added another sentence to further support.Cinderella157 (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "In probability, the initial and maximum strength of the Japanese forces at the beachheads lies somewhere between the lower figure of 6,500 and the upper figure of nearly 12,000". I suggest adding a short footnote about this one, explaining how the figures are derived and what sources were consulted.
• "The same could be said in the case of the 32nd Division". I think we've discussed this before, but can't remember. Is this an author's opinion? If so, attribute it in text, e.g. "According to Smith, "the same could be said...". If not, it probably should be removed as it seems like editorialising.

Changed to: "Similarly, the US 32nd Division went into battle ill prepared and inadequately trained." Where preceding paragraphs about 32nd Div have citations and substantiate that they were ill prepared and inadequately trained. I think (?) we discussed "The lot of the Australian troops was similar.{sfn|McCarthy|1959|p=419}{sfn|Milner|1957|p=151}" (under logistics), which you will now see has a citation. This was a short way of saying: As the Australians fought toward the north coast, they were chronically short of supplies, particularly rations, because of disrupted flights or poor recovery rates. The 16th Bde approached Gona out of rations and low on ammunition. To this extent, the lot of the Australian troops was similar to the American troops that had just been described. Or: The Australians were similarly affected by resupply which was irregular and frequently insufficient. Sorry, just trying to get my head around this. I know that it is often about tweaking language. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done?

• "MacArthur felt pressure to produce a victory to secure his command and he needed US troops to produce it for him." -- is this covered by the early McAuley ref? If so, I suggest just duplicating the in-line citation after it to make it clear;

Done

• "It was not possible to provide enough shells for overwhelming artillery support without sacrificing the supply of other essentials like food, medical supplies and small arms ammunition. Continued pressure for early results meant that precious supplies of artillery ammunition were consumed rather than stockpiled for a concentrated effort." -- probably needs a ref as it currently seems uncited

Done??

• "Area bombing could not be used effectively against forward Japanese positions, particularly in support of an attack, as Allied troops needed to be withdrawn to a safe distance." -- as above, probably needs a ref

There is one instance, where Dougherty pulled back troops to give the Airforce a "free run" and the Vasey quote (Battle) says that troops had to be pulled back for artillery, which is more accurate. Does a reference to the first and a note to the second solve the problem? It is one of those - I'm sure I read it but can I find it now? Think it might be in McAuley which I don't have ATM.Cinderella157 (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done?

• "On the morning of 10 January, the 18th Bde took the 2/7th Cavalry Regiment under command and occupied the positions held by the 39th and 49th Battalions of the 30th Bde, in preparation for an attack on 12 January" -- as above, probably needs a ref.

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @AustralianRupert and thanks. Sorry if my attention to detail is down a bit and I am letting more typos through than I should.

Re: "The 127th Inf Regt followed and joined the division in the battle area from around the end of the first week in December." The arrival of the 127th is detailed under 'Allied forces'. Just not certain how to use that info to create the citation here, since it did not arrive en mass but piece meal from the 4th until some time after the 17th? Is a note and citation to this effect sufficient here? "Arrived from 4 December (advance elements) {sfn|Milner|1957|p=241}" Can an internal ling be created? Normally, I woud say "see page" in a footnote. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "The logistical situation improved as the battle progressed but remained a defining feature of the engagement. Improvements in infrastructure and capacity were largely consumed by increases in the size of the force." I am struggling to remember the source of the first sentence - give me time. During the course of the battle Dobodura and Popondetta were continually improved with the development of multiple strips at these points. Internal roads were developed and Jeeps relieved some of the burden. Harbour facilities were developed and capacity increased through Liliput. Conversely, additional units arrived, including 21st Bde, 127th Regt, 30th Bde, 18th Bde, 163rd Regt and additional artillery (not to mention additional support units). There was some attrition and relief of units but a net increase consuming stores. I recall a quote to effect that the Allied logistics were tenuous but more enduring than the Japanese (will have to find again) and that this was the critical factor in the Allied victory. This sentence in the draft encapsulates all of this. I realise now that this might be criticised as synthesis or original research but, from the sources, it is glaringly obvious. How to handle? I don't want to expand the text. Do I create a note to this effect? Suggestions welcome. Does anybody have references that would support this as it stands? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure on the source of the quote above either. The irony of the logistical issue is well stated on Milner's pages 306 and 307 with this on 307: "Supply at Buna, in short, had ceased to be a problem just as the fight for the place was coming to an end." There is that old saying about amateurs focusing on battles and the real experts focusing on logistics. I've never been much of a fan of MacArthur, but the logistical nightmare here makes me think his generally good staff failed to pay attention to that and perhaps went on the offensive prematurely before they understood either what they faced (no quick, decisive strike worth the high risk of weak logistics) or the logistical difficulties. That was reinforced by Campbell's description of the staff and Mac—described as living in luxury wearing his silk robes—sending the Ghost Mountain Boys off on a trek through territory that was truly unknown to essentially starve and become seriously ill before arrival for their role in the battle. Palmeira (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

pls note changes to last para of 'Artillery' There is no direct quote/reference to substantiate either. For the first note, the case is that nobody used exactly those words. The connection to Sublet is perhaps a bit tenuous. The point is that the ammunition is 'rationed' and that resources are committed and consumed to half-cocked attacks without reasonable prospect of success because of command pressure,(see Katkar) where better preparation might avert the inevitable and preserve the resource to be used more effectively. I know (now) that it sails close to syntesis/original research but it is as basic as 1+1=2. Open for discussion. Might try a slightly different way to deal with the issue. The Brune quote didn't seem to fit comforably where it was and the bit about planes seem too out of place. Just trying a different way to use it. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Progress report

Hi all, I value the feedback provided. If I happen to disagree with comments, it does not mean that the input is not valued. Where I see that there is a difference of opinion, I would welcome further input.

1. I now believe that the article has been substantially referenced IAW Wiki criteria.
2. I have run the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js script and it has identified 2 issues. I need feedback regarding each of these. See Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js

Done

1. I have fixed those compound sentences I have identified as problematic.
2. @Palmeira has identified an HTML source for Center of Military History (1990). I have used the pdf version. I would like to have the reference link to both if possible but I need help. See Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#2 urls in a reference.

Have a workable solution.

1. I have proposed an alternative to explaining the issue of the sixth battle honour and will use it unless feedback indicates otherwise.

Done

1. I have made some concessions WRT the use of military abbreviations but believe that where these remain, their use is consistent with the MOS. Further comment is welcome, as are any corrections of errors or inconsistencies with the MOS.
2. I believe that the use of 'step up' and 'step back' are not inconsistent with the MOS. The meaning is explained within the context of their use. They are military terms with specific meaning and not just 'jargon'.
3. In the Allied Command section, I had deliberately placed the reference Blamey and MacArthur arriving at Port Moresby 'out of time' as a writing device to add emphasis to Blamey having been sent forward earlier. I believe that the questions asked in this section are answered in the preceding text. Herring is in command of 2 Allied divisions and the two allied Divisions in location when he takes command are the 32nd and the 7th. Unless there is any consensus indicating change is required I would intend to revert to the original text.

Done

1. On further reading, the addition (edit) to the logistics section about small ships, is largely dealt with (in a paraphrased form) in 'sea route opened'. 'Sea route opened' is structurally the best place for detail about the small ships. A passing reference was made under logistics, mainly as a link to the following paragraph and as a link to the following section. On this basis I would propose removing the added text, noting the correction to an error in fact and linking to the small ships section on the Lilliput page. I removed a lot of the material on Sverdrup because it was duplicated on his page. I appreciate the significance of the small ships but see that the Lilliput page small ships section is the 'maim article' for this.

Done

1. I would normally be the first to advocate an hierarchical structure but not in this case. I believe that the initial 'flat heading' structure sits well with this page even though an hierarchical structure could be imposed it possibly undermines the significance of the sections. I see it might also create issues of continuity. I am opposed to adding additional sub-sections where the ostensible reason is just to break it into smaller chunks. I perceive there is conflicting opinion on this. If a more hierarchical structure is advocated, I would propose all headings after 'Allied forces to 'Battle' as sub headings and 'Japanese forces' as a sub-heading of 'Japanese Defences'(and possibly swap order but I think this may cause a continuity issue). Disease as a main and Sea routes as a sub of logistics. I might put in Australian Militia (thereby breaking 32 Div in two at the same level). Comments?
2. I have been considering an expansion on the subject of the number of Japanese but the alternative is to delete the sentence "In probability, the initial and maximum strength of the Japanese forces at the beachheads lies somewhere between the lower figure of 6,500 and the upper figure of nearly 12,000." The additional material threatens to become unwieldy.
3. You will see the additional Vasey quote in the aftermath. I am pretty certain there is a better expanded version of this in McAuley. Don't have that handy ATM.

Done Cinderella157 (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

1. The placement of images is noted but is really just titivating the 'end product'.
2. Consensus for title of old section Pressure from above. Draft talk:Battle of Buna–Gona#MacArthur's pressure and posturing

Hope that I haven't left out anything of significance.

From my perspective, this phase is pretty much done. I feel that I need to get a consensus on any changes being advocated rather than individual opinions - particularly where I feel there are valid reasons for my having a different opinion. There are always going to be some minor errors that get identified.

Please note my preference to use ?? as a way of flagging questions embedded in text as I can do a quick search to find these.

Forgot to sign Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Added point 14 Cinderella157 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Noted action done.Cinderella157 (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC) ClarifiedCinderella157 (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, regarding the point about use of terms like "step up" and "step back", I'm not sure of the solution really, but I am concerned that if you asked a lay reader, they would probably not understand what you mean by these terms. While they might have specific meaning in a military context, we need to be careful to use plain language here as the majority of our readers will be lay readers. Regardless, it's not a major issue for me so I'm happy to defer to whatever the others agree to. Regarding the subheadings, hmm...again, not sure. I think that the current subheadings work pretty well, so I wouldn't be suggesting changing them at the moment. Again, let's see what the others say. Regarding the 6,500 and 12,000 figure range, please see my point below. I'd suggest adding a footnote explaining how they are derived including what sources were consulted, or maybe as you say deleting the sentence might be the best solution. Anyway, that's all I have time for at the moment, I will try to come back later when the others have given some input. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Update progress/Actions Cinderella157 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Japanese strength

"In probability, the initial and maximum strength of the Japanese forces at the beachheads lies somewhere between the lower figure of 6,500 and the upper figure of nearly 12,000." The additional material threatens to become unwieldy.

This covers the last para in Japanese defences, the paras under Japanese forces and the para on Japanese casualties in Aftermath. I have created the heading Japanese strength as a temporary holding place.

This is what you get when you assemble the relevant information without synthesis, analysis or any sort of evaluation. It could be deconstructed into a couple of notes to hang off some supporting text. I would tend to move the last para of Japanese defences into Japanese forces. It is too unweildy - there is just too much conflicting information for anybody (anybody normal) to make any sense of it. It needs some basic - fairly neutral synthesis to put it into a manageable context, with the detail taken out of the readable text but used to support the summation.

Comments, suggestions - either that, or we need to go back in time and give every body the same sheet music and tell them to clean up their ambiguities. My head hurts! Cinderella157 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

On a cursory analysis, the various reports tend to be consistent with a total strength deployed (including west of Gona of about 12,000 and an initial strength of about 9,000 immediately prior to the reinforcement on the 18th November. The various figures reported generally (with a couple of exceptions) could be accounted for by use of estimated or approximate figures or by ambiguity or lack of specific detail that would qualify the basis for the figure reported. This, of course would be considered research by wiki. The extent of the information and the apparent complexity is, perhaps, justification for making a basic and very neutral analysis in this case? (where conclusions and the neutrality were supported by consensus of peers). Cinderella157 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Size of Draft article - some background on how to deal with size

I have made a fairly crude analysis of size of the 'Battle' section of the current and draft pages. I cut and pasted the sub-sections of each to word and then removed the images and their captions.

The total description of the fighting at Gona in the existing article is:

The Gona push was reinforced by the remnants of Maroubra Force, made up of the battered 30th Brigade, a Militia unit which included the "ragged bloody heroes" of the Kokoda Track, the 39th Battalion.[71] On 8 December, following savage close-quarter fighting, the Australians captured Gona village.[71]

In making the comparison, I deleted the two sections, 'Gona' and 'West of Gona' (1406 words) from the word count of the draft. I also omitted the intoduction which is a precis of the battle. On the basis of this treatment, the existing article has 5449 words and the draft has 6432 words in the Battle section

In the existing article, this is the existing coverage to the employment of tanks at Buna and the action of the 18th Bde there.

The Australians had found that area suitable for tanks and the Allies decided to initiate a tank-infantry attack on the Duropa Plantation and New Strip areas. With the help of newly arrived artillery and mortar the attack began at 07:00 on 18 December.[69] In 10 days of fighting, the 32nd Division, reinforced by the fresh Australian 18th Brigade and with the help of the tanks, advanced along the coast from Duropa plantation to Buna Mission, taking the remaining Japanese positions on 2 January 1943.[103]

This is meant to cover 10 days (plus) of the most intense fighting on the Warren Front and the only advance of any significance made on that front since fighting commence a month before.

The total text for the existing article (exclusive of footnotes, references and bibliography but inclusive of captions etc - a straight cut and paste from the first word in the lead to the last in the aftermath) is 11953 words and in the draft, it is 27401 words. Without the section on 'Japanese strength' it is 25656 words. This section does not belong in the readable text of the document. The draft is about twice the size of the existing. These figures do not represent readable prose. Each grouping of citations count as a word. Exclusive of the 'Battle' section, the draft is 16283 words. I have put these figures down, not to justify the size but to put some perspective on things.

In draft - total - 27410 (25656 less Japanese strength)

Battle sub sections - 7839 (includes Gona/West of Gona)

Fire support - 4219

Logistics - 1755 (up from 1269)

32 Div - 1883 (up from 539 but covers AMF)

Buna-Gona is one of four significant land battles that marked the 'turning of the tide', including: the Kokoda campaign, Milne Bay and Guadalcanal. Kokoda is notable for its place in the Australian consciousness and that it prevented the invasion of Port Moresby, even though strategically, this can be attributed, in part, to the Guadalcanal campaign. Milne Bay was the first strategic land defeat for the Japanese. It was possibly as much a defeat for the Japanese as it was a victory for the Allies. Guadalcanal was strategically significant.

Buna-Gona was not of great strategic significance but it was seminal in respect to jungle warfare in the same way that Guadalcanal was to amphibious operations. It was also significant as the first major commitment of the US Army since the fall of the Philippines and for the number of casualties.

There are major themes that emerge from this battle: logistics, air support, armour, artillery and disease; that are at least as important (because of how they shaped future developments) as the chronology of the battle. There are also two major issues: criticism of the 32nd Division (and AMF) and command pressure from MacArthur.

The battle was fought over two months by six brigades and four regiments on four fronts. It was not punctuated by a series of actions like rounds in a boxing match, but more like a continuous slugging match. If there were clearly separate engagements (eg Kokoda Track Campaign) it would be easy to deal with size by having a main page for the campaign and linked pages for fuller detail of each battle. An approach could be used that uses linked pages to deal with each front. This is inconsistent with the semi-chronological format that has been adopted. It would be difficult but not impossible to rearrange and the Cape Killerton-Sanananda-Giruwa phase could be a little problematic.

In writing the draft, I have been very conscious of not duplicating material.(BTW - not saying this is perfect and can't be improved) Where I have made reference to events to develop a theme, I have made only a passing reference to these events in the chronology of the battle. A consequence is that the Battle section and the issues need to be kept together for continuity.

In writing this, I have also been very conscious of retaining as much of the original material as possible. You will note from my critique of the original article, apart from balance of coverage there were issues with ordering/grouping of ideas togeather and repetition. It was not my aim to totally rewrite the existing article but to address the issues of sequencing and repetition and to expand upon the article to provide better balance. I was working from a new structure. In the first instance, I collected together existing material on a subject by cutting and pasting it from a working version of the original material. By cutting it as I went, I avoided duplication in the new material. I then worked on integrating and developing the material into a new section. If I were writing the draft from scratch, I would not necessarily have used all of the material that I did from the existing version. Having said that, I am not now saying it should go.

I would be interested it determining the readable prose. I copied that line from User:AustralianRupert/monobook.js. for prosesize into my monobook but nothing seems to happen. Help on how to do this or could someone run it please. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Cinderella157 (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, I ran the script and it provides "137 kB (23329 words) readable prose size. To make the script work, once you've installed it in your monobook, refresh the article and on the tool bar to the left of the article you should see a "Page size" blue link. Left click it once and the article will be highlighted yellow. At the top the size of the text will appear in bold writing. Regards, 02:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @AustralianRupert Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)