Talk:Battle of Kaiapit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	Australian military history task force
	Japanese military history task force
	United States military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War II task force

Portal	Battle of Kaiapit is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian military.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

A fact from Battle of Kaiapit appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 17, 2008.

would be on the main page if it had some inline cites Victuallers (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What are they? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnoted references like the ones the article has 11 of. I'm not sure what the background is here, but the citing seems perfectly adequete. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been waiting for the 'Battle' and 'Aftermath' sections to show up before I cook up a hook for DYK. Both sections are still empty. Obviously incomplete articles shouldn't be featured, even if the rest of the article is well written and referenced. --PFHLai (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking good. A re-assessment is in order. BTW, I've just nominated this article for DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)