Talk:Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal article.
Article policies
Featured article star Naval Battle of Guadalcanal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 12, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

Unfortunately, much of this article appeared to originally be "lifted" from: http://www.answers.com/topic/naval-battle-of-guadalcanal. However, over the past several days I, and apparently a couple of others, have been engaged in extensive rewrites of the entry. By the time we're through, I anticipate that the article will be almost completely original without any potential copywrite issues. Fortunately, as with many topics involving US Navy involvement, there are numerous resources and photographs available on the web from US Government sources that are free from copywrite restrictions. Cla68 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Answers.com is copying from wikipedia, not the other way 'round: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)".
—wwoods 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see, my mistake if that is true. I appreciate the help in improving on the original entry. Cla68 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder if that's a first - a major rewrite based on a mistaken idea of originality. Just as a note for the future, you can usually detect actual copyvios by looking through the history and noticing a large addition done as a single edit. Sampling the history here shows that current state was reached very gradually, a sentence or a paragraph at a time. Stan 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
At first, I wasn't rewriting the entry because I thought it wasn't original. I was just trying to improve on someone else's good initial work. While I was searching around for information to assist my efforts, I found the Answer.com entry and apparently jumped to the wrong conclusion. It's enjoyable to work on an entry and then come back to see that others have corrected mistakes and improved on it in other ways that one didn't think of. It's refreshing after having been involved in attempting to add input to other, more contentious articles on Wikipedia. Cla68 19:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Tell it, brother! :-) —wwoods 08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admiral Scott's death

From Richard B. Frank's Guadalcanal, pp. 443–4:

"Previous accounts of this action have attributed Scott's death to Japanese gunfire and therefore this matter bears elaboration. ... [Atlanta's action report] shows thirteen hits classed as "5.5-inch," ... but none in the immediate vicinity of Scott's station. Atlanta was also struck, however, by nineteen projectiles identified as 8-inch, undoubtedly from San Francisco ... Seven of these 8-inch hits ... smashed through flag plot, [etc.] ... The location of these hits would coincide with the location of Scott and his staff."

—wwoods 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hammel's book claims Admiral Scott was killed by Japanese fire before San Francisco hit Atlanta. However, I'm with you in placing greater confidence in Frank's information since he uses more original sources in his book than Hammel does. I'm using Hammel's book to put greater detail in the battle narrative but will then join you in crosschecking everything with Frank's account. Thanks for the help. Cla68 11:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Since you can modify images, how about putting a mark, and label, on Henderson Field on the map of Guadalcanal? —wwoods 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a novice at it, but I'll do my best. Cla68 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. Cla68 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article (FA) Plans

I would like to nominate this article for FA. I think it's adequately and correctly referenced, avoids stilted and awkward prose, and the images are approved for use on Wikipedia. However, I think the article needs some battle maps to pass the strict FA review from Wikipedia community members, who are vigilant in this respect. I'm going to be purchasing "Campaign Cartographer 2" in the next couple of weeks to try to do maps for this article and others. However, if others who have experience in doing this want to jump in beforehand and get it done, it would be greatly appreciated. I think we need at least one map for the Battle of Friday the 13th and the second surface action (Nov 14th). I suggest using the Frank or Hara books as references. Otherwise, look for my attempts at good maps in a month or so. Cla68 00:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Promotion

I have recently reviewed this article & found that it meets the criterion for being a good article. So I have promoted it to GA status. My congratulations to all the contributors for doing a fine job. Cheers. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation spot check

As part of this project, I've performed a check on the accuracy of several citations in this article. Results were as follows:

  1. Footnote 6. " 12 of the Japanese aircraft were shot down"
    • Checks out. From book: "In reality, 11 of 16 Bettys and one Zero fell..."
  2. Footnote 36. "Laffey passed so close to Hiei that they missed colliding by only 20 feet."
    • Iffy. From book: "From Ensign Sterett's vantage point, Laffey seemed to clear Hiei 's bows by less than 20 feet."
      • The statement made in the article is stronger than the statement it's cited to; not so good.
  3. Footnote 73. "Due to the confused nature of the battle, the U.S. believed that they had sunk as many as half-a-dozen Japanese ships"
    • Needs work. Presumably drawn from the timeline of the action at [1].
      • For a work of this size, the citation should indicate a specific page number to make it clear what the statement is based on. Factually accurate, but citation should be improved.
  4. Footnote 84. "The 35-minute bombardment caused some damage to various aircraft and facilities at the airfield, but didn't put it out of operation"
    • Checks out. From book: "...Admiral Nishimura's thirty-seven minute bombardment", "The Fighter-1 runway was amply cratered", "two of their Wildcat fighters were destroyed and fifteen others were damaged", "In addition to seriously cratering the steel-matted runway, the Japanese...destroyed one Dauntless dive bomber and fifteen Wildcats and damaged seventeen Wildcats", "In that regard, in addition to gutting the fighter contingent, the bombardment had been a thoroughgoing success. But that was not nearly the degree of success Admiral Tanaka was hoping for."
  5. Footnote 102. "Using radar targeting, the two U.S. battleships opened fire on the Sendai group at 23:17."
    • Checks out. From book: "...her SG radar picked up returns on on Hashimoto's trio at a range of about 9 miles", "At 2316, Lee granted permission for his captains to 'Open fire when you are ready'". One minute later...Washington discharged her first main battery salvo..."

No really serious problems, but a couple of minor issues need to be addressed. --RobthTalk 04:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the two that didn't check out completely. Cla68 19:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] South Dakota and Washington

From my understanding of the Nov. 14-15 phase of the battle, the South Dakota did not exactly follow the Washington after the circuit failures. Instead she steered a course that placed her between the IJN ships and the burning USN destroyers. This had the effect of silhouetting the South Dakota and made her a nice target for the IJN. Hence she drew so much fire while the Washington continued on apparently undetected.

Also there was much confusion aboard Washington regarding initial targeting and worrying about friendly fire. Because of the placement of her radar, she had a blind spot in radar coverage to the rear and could not keep track of South Dakota following behind her. Because of this, the Washington held fire with her main battery until it was apparent where the South Dakota was located when she was being brought under fire by most of the IJN force.

One source for this information is Ivan Musicant, "Battleship at War".

Txflood 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The exact same thing is described in this Robert Ballard's "The Lost Ships of Guadalcanal". The blind spot was apparently caused by mounting the radar to the front of the mast, rather than the top. - Nakamura2828 20:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the two references that you two mention so if either one of you could correct the article and add the citation to back up the correction that would be very helpful. Cla68 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whodunnit?

"Either Nagara,[45] or Teruzuki,[46] and Yukikaze[30] came upon the drifting Cushing ..."

There's one too many commas here, but I don't have a source handy, so I don't know which to remove. Is it
`(Nagara OR Teruzuki) AND Yukikaze´, or
`Nagara OR (Teruzuki AND Yukikaze)´ ?

Maybe rephrasing would be better?:
`Yukikaze, and either Teruzuki or the cruiser Nagara, came ...´ or
`Either Nagara, or the destroyers Teruzuki and Yukikaze, came ...´
—wwoods 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Either Nagara, or the destroyers Teruzuki and Yukikaze." I'll make the change. Cla68 23:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix

Fixed some minor vandalism: "U.S. reconnaissance aircraft spotted the approach of the Japanese ships and passed a warning to the Allied command.[18] HAHAHAHAHA Thus warned, Turner detached all usable combat ships...." Xfa 19:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor vandalism at the end of the "background" section. I can't see it in the 'edit this page' section, so I can't erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryantheis (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The curse of the main page featured article. Thanks for helping fight the vandalism. Cla68 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tulagishib?

"On August 7, 1942, Allied Forces (primarily U.S.) landed on Guadalcanal, Tulagishib, and the Florida Islands ..." Is Tulagishib a typo? I couldn't find it on Google.Dcheng 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Cla68 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigger than Midway?

I have no doubt that some writers have formed the opinion that Midway was not as important as the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, and that some even think that's what the Japanese believed. The Japanese interrogated after the war all seemed to have different ideas on where the turning points of the war actually were. Here is a link to a USSBS interrogation of a German Admiral stationed with the IJN as some kind of exchange program. Also accessible are interrogations of Japanese officers. Interrogation of: Vice Admiral Paul H Weneker, German Naval Attaché Japan Admiral Weneker mentions that the IJN high command seemed depressed about what happened at Midway but didn't mention this battle.

I reworded the assertion to make it as clear as possible that it's an author's opinion not necessarily a fact. Anynobody 06:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in the Battle of Edson's Ridge article, there is a cited passage that states that the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (IGH) thought that the Guadalcanal battle could well be the "decisive battle of the war." The IGH never issued a similar statement about Midway. The Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands article also covers the fact that the Japanese navy felt that Midway was only a temporary setback, and that they still had the ships and personnel fully capable of defeating the US in a decisive naval battle. Frank appears fairly certain in his assertion that many high-ranking Japanese officers considered Guadalcanal to be more significant than Midway. Cla68 (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Were they referring to the months-long Guadalcanal campaign as a whole, or to this specific engagement? Comments from September or October couldn't have meant the latter. Using "Guadalcanal" or the phrase "Battle of Guadalcanal" in this article may be causing confusion. This battle was significant, as the Japanese defeat cost them any realistic chance of winning the campaign.
—wwoods (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about the whole campaign, just the engagements discussed in this article. When discussing the overall campaign, the Japanese blew several chances to turn the tide of it (for example by putting on troops in too small of numbers etc.)

It's just that if there had been no victory at Midway, there would not have been a campaign in Guadalcanal as we know it. Anynobody 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase in the article was supposed to mean the entire Guadalcanal campaign, not just the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it really belongs in the Guadalcanal campaign article, when discussing the entire struggle for the island. Anynobody 06:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, but I put it here because this battle was the climatic battle of the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean no offense, really, and the material I removed is not meant to be a criticism or anything like it. We just need to minimize redundancy between related articles to a reasonable extent. Anynobody 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abe's decision to withdraw

"The way appeared clear for Abe to bombard Henderson Field, and, perhaps, finish off the U.S. naval forces in the area, ..."

The way was clear, but did it "appear" so to Abe, that night? If not, perhaps it'd be better to say something like, 'With the advantage of hindsight, the way was clear for Abe to ...'.
—WWoods (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that should be worded differently. [2] Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)