The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article has already appeared on the front page as a DYK. I created this as a spin off from the main Douglas MacArthur article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Interesting article. It could probably do with a simple map though to show the basic locations involved.
The first paragraph in the lead assumes the reader knows the context of the situation. If the reader didn't know who MacArthur was or what was happening in 1942 it wouldn't make a lot of sense (it doesn't explain that MacArthur was a US general/field marshal, or that he's fighting the Japanese in the Second World War, for example). I'd advise making the first few sentences much more explanatory.
Added a bit to the lead. Background is discouraged in the lead sections. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"MacArthur faced a mammoth, and ultimately hopeless, task in getting the Philippine Army ready for war. On a visit to the United States in 1937, he pressed for the development of PT boats." It isn't clear if there's causation between the two sentences or not.
" his son, Arthur MacArthur IV," - it might be worth giving a broad age for his son (is he an adult, a teenager, etc.) It effects how the later bit about his family is interpreted. (NB: I see his age is given later, probably worth bringing it up to the first mention of him)
The problem is that his birthday was on 21 February, so he will start the article aged three and then become four halfway down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and a trawler on 17 February" - as in a fishing trawler?... Sounded a bit odd!
" On one of the others, 300 US gallons (1,100 l; 250 imp gal) of fuel were accidentally dumped. " First time I scanned this, I read it as saying that fuel was dumped on the aircraft, rather than fuel was dumped from the aircraft. Worth tweaking slightly.
"Only one B-17, piloted by Lieutenant Harl Pease, made it, and it was in poor condition, with no brakes and a faulty supercharger." - "made it" sounded a little informal.
" He did not, but the fact that she was aware of MacArthur's presence was disturbing to the party, as the Japanese were only 30 miles (48 km) away" - I might have missed something, but I couldn't work out where the Japanese were in this, so it felt a little confusing.
"Postwar analysis would show that most of the book's claims were exaggerated. But one was not." - the "But one was not" felt a little dramatically phrased to me; also, it wasn't clear what the exaggerated claims were, or what the unexaggerated claim is (that the future staff escaped on the boats...?) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the one. The others included shooting down Japanese aircraft, sinking Japanese warships, and driving General Homma to commit suicide. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a great topic for an article, and it's in good shape. My comments are:
I agree that a map would be good, even if it is a dodgy effort like mine at Take Ichi convoy.
Okay, I added a bodgey map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of the lead is a bit underwhelming and doesn't really capture the drama of these events
Re-word, but any suggestions would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good, but the first paragraph could be punchier. I'll have a think about some alternate wording. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to downplay MacArthur's status to call him only a "a defense advisor to the Philippine government" given that he was the head of the local military
He wasn't really. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're the expert here :) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Philippines had no navy at all" - you should probably note the presence of United States Asiatic Fleet (and its weakness)
"Although the dependants of U.S. military personnel had been sent back to the United States, MacArthur was, until his recall from retirement, a Philippine government employee." - it's a bit unclear what this is getting at. I presume that it relates to MacArthur's family still being in the Philippines, but this link should be made clearer.
Move the sentence to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"MacArthur had a loyal, experienced and functioning staff, some of whom had been with MacArthur for years" - there's a bit of repetition here
In his (very entertaining, though not hugely scholarly) speech to the Australian War Memorial's recent conference, the MacArthur Memorial's archivist James W. Zobel stated that MacArthur was expecting to find a large American force in Australia when he arrived, and was deeply shocked to learn that this didn't exist. Can anything be added about this? Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This comes from Lee and Henschel MacArthur (1952); but it isn't supported by the people who were there, such as Rogers and Brett. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it sounded a bit suss. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments have now all been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images: all OK with the exception of File:MacArthur's Escape.jpg which needs details of the US military map on which it is based and a statement of copyright which includes this. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 18:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, you're right. The original map it is based on is a US Army work, which was first published in 1966, although it was created back in the 1940s. Removed map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Hawkeye, you're OK: as a work of the US federal government it is in the public domain. I would merely like to see details to confirm this, which you seem to have - a web page source for example. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 17:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good work as usual, Hawkeye. I reviewed this at GAN and having reviewed the changes since then, I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. I've made a few minor tweaks and have a couple of minor comments:
WP:MOSTIME asks for the times to have a colon in them, even in 24-hour time. For instance "0930" should be "09:30";
the duplicate link checker tool suggests a few instances of possibly overlinked terms: President of the United States, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Aide-de-camp and Medal of Honor. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: Given that my forte is political biographies, I can't say much about the military aspects of this article, but since I have two articles up for ACR right now, I felt like I ought to attempt to review one. What follows, then, is mainly a series of comments on the prose. I skipped several quibbles about commas. Overall, I found the article interesting, very detailed, and yet accessible to a military novice (i.e. me).
Lead:
"From there, MacArthur and his party flew to Australia, finally arriving in Melbourne on 21 March." Is "finally" needed here?
To let the reader know where it all ended. Changed to "ultimately" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted "brave but" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
Why use "had been" etc. instead of "was" etc.?
Actually that will work. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He had been an aide-de-camp to his father and to President Theodore Roosevelt" When? During the Mexican-American War?
I think it makes it clear that this was between 1903 and 1914. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just always see aide-de-camp in the context of a war. Are they also used during peacetime? Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added dates. The aide-de-camp is usually more prominent in peace time. Their main task is managing the general's appointment book. Most enjoy the job, but are glad to get back to regular duties. However, an ambitious officer like David Petreus can build a career on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"he united the United States" Maybe avoid repeating "united".
It's a technical term, so I need it. Reversed the order of the two countries. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"MacArthur pressed for the development" Who did he press for this development?
The Navy Department. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"PT boats, small, fast boats armed with torpedoes" Would an ndash be better than the first comma?
I think you mean an mdash. Sticking with the comma.
Maybe it should be an mdash. To me, it just needs a harder stop than a comma; I had to read this part a couple of times to figure out what was going on. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the old submarine tender USS Canopus" How old is "old"?
Good point. Deleted "old". You'll note that its article calls it "ageing but able" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decision:
"The brave but doomed defense of Bataan had captured the imagination of the American public, who saw him" Either change the first "the" to "his" or change the last "him" to "MacArthur".
"broadcasts calling for MacArthur to be placed in charge in Australia had been picked up" Picked up by whom? How did they know they had been picked up?
"However radio broadcasts calling for MacArthur to be placed in charge in Australia had been picked up; Japanese surface patrols had been stepped in the Subic Bay area; and there were reports of Japanese destroyers heading north from the southern Philippines." Not sure it's really appropriate to join three independent clauses using semicolons.
Split them up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 3" was linked in the previous section, so it shouldn't be here. Also, "three" was spelled out previously, but here it is a numeral. Should be consistent.
"55-gallon drum" doesn't seem like a value-added link to me.
Not everyone thought it was obvious that a 55-gallon drum is a 44-gallon drum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reading that article now, I see what you mean. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"They would be more valuable there than in the Philippines." Seems POV.
I don't think that their relative value in Australia vs the Philippines is in dispute. The contentious bit was whether they were the most valuable personnel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I typically try to attribute assessments of a situation to a historical authority, but I won't argue that. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is supported by the source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"duffel bag" also seems like a link of limited value.
Again, non-military readers may not know what this is. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where I'm from, even non-military bags of this type are called duffel bags. I don't think it will be a problem for most readers, but I'll leave that to your judgement. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several links are unnecessarily repeated in the passenger table.
I have no reason not to support if most of these comments are addressed. If, for some reason, I fail to notice your responses and register a support !vote, ping me on my talk page. Nice work! Acdixon(talk·contribs) 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few of these that I still have concerns about, but nothing worth withholding support over. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 14:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
