Talk:Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom/GA1

GA Review edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 05:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply


This in great shape. Not much to comment on:

  • the lead could do with a bit of expansion to properly summarise the article, should probably mention the role of Australforce in the anti-invasion plans and the creation of the 25th Brigade in the UK
  • link Red Sea
  • when the 18th Bde is first mentioned, it is probably worth stating that it only comprised three of its original four battalions (the 2/11th being left behind and later joining the 19th Bde in the Middle East) and list/link them. That way it isn't a shock when there are only three battalions, and one in the series of four is missing. The 2nd AIF brigade histories can be confusing.
    • Done. It seems that only three battalions embarked, so I'd rather simply list those which reached the UK rather than get into the history of the unit. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • when the 25th Bde is first mentioned, worth listing its three battalions too, albeit the initial names 70th etc. Then later mention that they were re-designated as the 2/31st etc in October 1940 before embarkation for the Middle East.
  • should it be "infantry leaders' school"?
    • Probably not. The source doesn't specify the name, stating that "a school was established for training infantry leaders". I missed an interesting detail on this, which I've just added. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • BEF is introduced without first providing it in full
  • what date was the 9th Div established?
    • I'll double-check, but the sources are vague. The scan of the relevant war diary for AIF UK Force (that covering October-November 1940) on the AWM website is largely unreadable, which doesn't help! Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • A bit more on the indiscipline issue would be interesting. What had happened?
    • The source doesn't say unfortunately: it just notes that the Australians had a bad reputation. This may have been a hangover from World War I, as no source mentions the World War II force as experiencing significant problems and it looks to have been very busy. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • worth mentioning that the 25th Bde ended up as part of the 7th Div rather than the 9th
  • which Australian general hospital was it? Had the 3rd Australian Special Hospital been converted?
    • Yes, to the 2/3rd Australian General Hospital: added a para on this. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "Shortly afterwards the Group", probably drop the initial cap on Group, same for "The Group arrived"
  • link Board foot for super feet
  • (5) five RAAF personnel
    • I prefer to not swap between numerals and words when describing numbers in the same sentence: it looks a bit clunky. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • link RACMP to provost platoon
  • link Australian Red Cross
  • did the AIF Reception Group handle RAAF POWs?
    • I don't think so. The sources are a bit vague, but seem to specify that it handled soldiers only. The RAAF had a long-standing system for managing the large numbers of its personnel in the UK, which included a depot, and I presume that they handled the RAAF POWs. Photos of released RAAF POWs in the AWM database show them at Brighton, which was where the main RAAF depot was located. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • perhaps link "send a cable" to telegraphy? Few people reading this these days would even know what that was.
  • maybe mention that Lindsay Hassett was the captain of the team for the Victory Tests given he had been a Test player before the war?
  • suggest (not a GA requirement in any sense) shortened footnotes for the newspapers and web sources to eliminate white space in the References section
  • images all look okazay.

That's me done, placing on hold for the above minor points to be addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Thanks for these comments - I'll follow up on them over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • @Peacemaker67: I think that I've now addressed all these comments. I've also added a few extra paras on various issues which you might want to review. Merry Christmas by the way! Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
      • This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply