The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors, particularly ERcheck and Looper5920. Cla68 06:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, yet another outstanding article from Cla68! Kirill Lokshin 06:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with all my heart!--Yannismarou 09:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object until 1a is satisfied. Mainly good, but still spotted by glitches all over the place. Here are examples from the lead that indicate that the whole text needs a good copy-edit by fresh eyes.

I appreciate the constructive feedback. The article was extensively copyedited, but the intro may have been overlooked. I responded to each point below: Cla68 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • "(12 September–14, 1942)"
    • Moved to a different place in the lead sentence and removed the parentheses.
  • "successfully repulsed an attack"—spot the redundant word.
    • "successfully" deleted.
  • "which guarded Henderson Field on Guadalcanal, which was ..."—which x 2
    • • One "which" changed to "that."
  • "Kawaguchi's unit was sent to Guadalcanal in response to the Allied landings with the mission of recapturing the airfield and driving the Allied forces off of the island." Comma needed after "landings", or ambiguous. NEVER say "off of", because "of" is redundant. But here, try the more elegant "from the island".
    • Changed as suggested.
  • "The main Japanese assault occurred on an unnamed ridge south of Henderson Field that was manned by troops from several U.S. Marine Corps units, but primarily troops from the 1st Raider and 1st Parachute Battalions under U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Merritt A. Edson." On the long and curly side, this sentence. The "but" is unclear to me.
    • "But" changed to "although."
  • "subsequent historical accounts of the battle"—spot the redundant word.
    • "Historical" deleted.
  • "the Japanese continued to send more troops to Guadalcanal for subsequent attempts to retake Henderson Field, which affected Japanese offensive operations in other areas of the South Pacific."—"Continued to" doesn't need "subsequent" as well, does it? Check whether you need "more"; maybe, maybe not. Does the "which" refer back to the sending of more troops or the retaking. Don't like "for" here. Careful, detailed crafting is required; then we'll be proud of it. Tony 13:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to: "After Edson's Ridge, the Japanese continued to send troops to Guadalcanal for further attempts to retake Henderson Field, affecting Japanese offensive operations in other areas of the South Pacific."

• Support. Another great article from you. Soon you will have all thje article's about the Pacific Campaign as FA's. :) Kyriakos 21:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very good article, featured quality. Hello32020 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comprehensive, well-written article. Good job. Baristarim 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT Comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced article that meets all FA criteria. —ExplorerCDT 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT. Well written and documented. Offers comprehensive coverage not only of the battle but the surrounding "big picture" buildup. The opening of the article also offers a concise summary, detailed enough to grasp the essence at once, but not too detailed, something I haven't often seen. Also gives good coverage of the Japanese side- movements and plans, rather than just focusing on the US. Authors have scrupulously documented the article too. A cross check against other books not listed in the references, such as Jack Coggins 'Battle for Guadacanal', confirms that they are shooting straight. Authors also include a closing section noting battle's significance, something not always seen, a good way to wrap-up. All in all, a professional looking product. Endorse FA status. Odinista 01:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SUPPORT. An outstanding effort, worthy in every way of FA status.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PHG 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - --Bryson 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.