# Talk:Battle of North Borneo

As some slightly belated comments in response to a request from AR:

The background section should go into the goals for this operation in some detail - the Battle of Labuan article covers this. A key issue is the strategic value of the operation, given that a key goal was to capture a base for the British Pacific Fleet which the British definitely did not want to ever use (as doing so would have sidelined the BPF from the main campaign against Japan).
The nature of the Japanese occupation should also be noted: a benefit of this campaign is that it liberated civilians from harsh treatment.
I'd suggest an 'opposing forces' type section. The shambolic state of the Japanese forces is important to emphasise, as it explains why the campaign was so one-sided. The 9th Division was also one of the best Allied units anywhere.
The pre-invasion air campaign isn't noted at present
The 'battle' section would benefit from being split into sub-sections. The coverage of the campaign in Brunei and to the south of the town could be expanded a bit.
More detail on the Japanese side of the campaign would be helpful - e.g., that their main priority was to withdraw (which also helps to explain why there wasn't much fighting - the only battles were at Labuan where the garrison couldn't escape despite being authorised to do so and at Beaufort where the Japanese were trying to protect a key line of retreat.
The guerrilla campaign could be covered in more detail, as it was pretty big.
The civil affairs effort could be covered in more detail - for instance, noting the role and failings of the British civilian administration which was basically elbowed aside by the 9th Division
"Such was the relationship formed between the 9th Division and the civilian population of North Borneo, that the division's Unit Colour Patch was incorporated into the coat of arms of the Colony of British Borneo following the war, remaining as such until 1963" - I'm a bit sceptical of this, given that the coat of arms was that of the colonial government which the locals had no say over. Allied forces caused widespread destruction as part of this campaign, though they seem to have been welcomed by most of the locals. It would be interesting to reflect on how modern Malaysians regard the operation, as there seem to be quite a few local non-Australian funded memorials. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day, Nick, thanks, quite a list -- I'll get started on it. Regarding the last point, I've attributed it in text now. From what I can tell, the coat of arms does seem include the division's T shape UCP, see: File:Coat of arms of the Crown Colony of North Borneo.svg. Happy to reword if you think there's a better way to incorporate this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nick-D: G'day, Nick, I think I have addressed these points now. Would you mind taking another look and letting me know if anything needs a bit more attention? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of North Borneo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. It may take me a couple of days to get to it. An odd question: As I assume that this is headed straight for at least ACR, would you like me to do a "straight" assessment against the GAN criteria? Or give it the works and check over everything as if it were at FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Gog, thanks for taking a look at this. I am not intending of taking this to ACR or FAC at this stage (I am a bit busy in real life at the moment), so probably just focus on the GAN criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

Looks good, thank you. It always pays to get another set of eyes on these things. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
"relatively significant casualties" A minor point: this jars to me; consider deleting "relatively". (It is explained more fully in the main text.)
Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The last sentence of the lead seems to be trying to do a lot. Consider splitting it.
Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
You link "Japanese occupation of Borneo" to Borneo campaign (1942). Possibly Japanese occupation of British Borneo would be a better target?
That link is used later in the paragraph for the occupation policies, so I wasn't sure about using it for initial fighting in 1942 -- as such I reworded the earlier use of "occupation" to invasion to distinguish between the two phases (main combat operations and then occupation). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
"Having been planned by General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the South West Pacific Area, to take place in three stages—preparatory bombardment, forced landings, advance—the objective of the operation in north Borneo was to enable the Allies to establish "an advanced fleet base" for the British Pacific Fleet in Brunei Bay, which offered the Allies a deep-water port,[8] in order to enable subsequent naval operations, to capture the vast oil and rubber supplies available in the area and to re-establish British civil administration." Sentence creep, perhaps?
I have split this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Link Labuan.
Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"another was sent to its aid to attack the Japanese force from the rear" Maybe 'another was sent to aid it by attacking the Japanese force from the rear'?
Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
"the company reached their" Genuine question: Can a company reach "their" objective, or should it be its?
Adjusted -- I think, it depends whether one considers it a collective noun, or not (which I think some people agree with and some don't). The style guide I use at work says to use "it" rather than they, but I sometimes get a bit sloppy. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
"for which they were intended, arrived at Weston on 3 July, where it relieved" Should this be consistent?
Adjusted per the above. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I will give it another read through, but that trivia is all I can find. Well up to your standards. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Gog. I think I've addressed the points above. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that all looks good. I found the coverage of this in Japanese occupation of British Borneo interesting when I did a little work on it 18 months ago (I note that you and Zawed did a lot of tidying up after me - I am not sure if I have improved much since then) and the full, detailed treatment is even more so. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gog. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)