Talk:Salamaua–Lae campaign
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
References
editWhere is all of this new information coming from? Please reference. --Ineffable3000 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm planning to, but have been concentrating on the content itself. All of it easily verifiable through web searches. Grant | Talk 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good. And 'easily verifiable through web searches' is not the best excuse. --Ineffable3000 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Verifiable via web searches is actually a step in the right direction. A huge amount of guff on Wiki is referenced via sources that have nothing to do with the article. They are dummy refs, just there to look the part. The best sources are printed and reviewed ones. My 2c worth on Nadzab. The RAAF did not finish Nadzab until 1955. The Marston was ripped up and the runway sealed. Was to allow Sabres to land. The road to Nadzab was/is tough going but it did not cross the Markham River. That bridge was not done until 1955, and goes to Bulolo and Wau.220.240.248.221 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- You might consider adding some of this information to the Lae Nadzab Airport article if you have refs. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
RE: Thomas Blamey
editFrom the lede of the Thomas Blamey article: "Blamey also planned and carried out the significant and victorious Salamaua–Lae Campaign." In this article on the Salamaua–Lae Campaign he is hardly mentioned at all: only a neutral to somewhat negative mention in the aftermath section. Can some fine historian determine which of these articles is BS? (Sarcasm intended.)CactusFlower (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Repeating comment from talk:Thomas Blamey: I believe you have missed my sarcasm. Both of the articles appear to me (a non-military historian admittedly) as puff pieces. Please keep your puff pieces consistent mates. CactusFlower (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Meters-feet conversion
edit"On 11 September, the 7th Division's 25th Infantry Brigade engaged about 200 Japanese soldiers entrenched at Jensen's Plantation in a firefight, at a range of 30 m (50 feet)." One foot is 30.48 centimetres, so 30 metres is approximately equivalent to 100 feet (98.425 feet, to be exact) while 50 feet is equivalent to 15.24 metres. Which figure is correct -- 30 m or 100 feet?--Death Bredon (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- G'day, Death Bredon, good catch -- I don't have access to the cited Buggy source, but the London Gazette citation states "50 yards", so I've changed it to that and have added the {{convert}} template to hopefully make the conversion more accurate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)