Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Eastern Solomons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Battle of the Eastern Solomons

I believe this history/war article meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article (FA) status. The article has been through a peer review and is currently assessed at "A-Class" on the WikiProject military history quality assessement scale. I'm standing by to respond to any suggestions, comments, or requests. Cla68 17:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article in every regard. One minor thing to check, though: the times seem to be sometimes given in pure military time ("At 1629...") and sometimes in regular 24-hour time ("...at 16:46..."); it would probably be best to stick to a single format throughout. Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have caught that before. I've changed all the times to 24-hour time format. Thank you, Cla68 17:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Article looks good. I am slightly concerned about using too few sources for inline citations which may have resulted in a POV article. Hopefully the editors have taken care of that. The article, though, requires extensive copyediting. Clean it per WP:WTA and you will get my support. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the WP:WTA guidance and the only word on that list that I see in the article is the word "however." But, the way that word is used in the article, to contrast different decisions made and actions taken during the course of the battle, doesn't appear to be used in the way that the guidance suggests shouldn't be done. As far as the number of sources, even though there are only three main sources used, I believe they do cover the event comprehensively and neutrally, the only obstacle being that not as many Japanese sources appear to have survived that document their side of the battle. The Frank book uses extensive western and translated Japanese documents as references and is very well sourced. The Hara book is a first-hand account of the battle by a Japanese participant. The Hammel book leans more towards the U.S. side, but does include POV from the Japanese side, although not as much as Frank's book. The attack on the U.S. ships (especially Enterprise) is given more detail than the attacks on the Japanese ships because more details are available, plus, one of the significant actions and effects of the battle for the Japanese, which was the loss of many of their aircraft, occurred during their attacks on the U.S. ships. Cla68 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A great article worthy of FA! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but is there a way to get rid of all of the white space at the top of the article? RyanGerbil10 (Drop on in!) 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support good stuff. Makes me proud to be a wikipedian. —D-Rock 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• SupportQuestion I find the massive white space break in 'Background' disconcerting. Can you get rid of it? Rlevse 19:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from on the question about the white space. I've tried different things to get rid of it, but I'm stumped as how to do it. The problem is that placing the image link at the beginning of that paragraph moves the image and paragraph down to the bottom of the campgain box, creating the white space. If the image link is put at the end of that paragraph, then the image will run into the next section. If the image link is put in the middle of the paragraph, then white space appears in the middle of the paragraph. If anyone knows how to resolve this problem, I'm open to the advice. Cla68 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no excess white space. Running Firfox/Windows. —D-Rock 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with having images overlap a section break. In fact, I think that it's a positive thing from an aesthetic viewpoint, since it reduces the extent to which the line after a second-level heading interrupts the flow of the article, and is more consistent with how images are positioned in printed material. Kirill Lokshin 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Change to support. I can only think this is an issue with my browser at work. At work (IE), there was a huge white space breaking up that section, but at home (both IE and FF), there is no break. Maybe my work browser is an older version. Kudos to the author for the rapid fixing of all the feedback. Rlevse 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

When I view the article on my laptop, the white space disappears. Cla68 14:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great and detailed article worthy of FA status. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support Not too long but not too short, very descriptive, amazing pictures-ScotchMB 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Minor comment: In hiding the TOC, I notice that the campaign's navigation box gets covered by the photo of the Wasps. For what it's worth, I'm using FF at 1024x768.--Monocrat 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but with a few minor suggestions I like the article, and I believe it is very well-referenced. However, there are a lot of book references, which could make it hard for someone who doesn't have that book to verify the material. Providing a link along with the book (e.g. a link to Amazon, which often allows searching inside the book, or to a summary/review of the book somewhere) could be helpful. Also, there are a number of repeat references/notes: use of the ref name attribute would group these together. But these are minor issues. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but, from what I've seen in other articles, links to Amazon and other commercial book sellers are frowned-upon by the Wikipedia community. However, I'll try to find neutral (i.e. not trying to sell the book) media reviews of those books and add the links to the end of the book reference in the "books" section. Cla68 17:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, using Amazon's search inside is one of the methods reccommended by Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Finding a good source may require some effort for fact-checking book references. Of course there are other options. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added some links for several of the books, including Frank's, to Amazon's Online Reader for those books. Cla68 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 : ) I added a few more Amazon Online Reader links... I don't think Amazon has it for the rest. I also combined a few of the repeat inline citations... you can see what I did... great job on the article! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs)

Thank you. Cla68 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent read, good information, nice sourcing. Themillofkeytone 15:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, lots of inline citations and has a great map.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)