Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/18th Battalion (Australia)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
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 promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2/18th Battalion (Australia) edit

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

This article is part of my unofficial Australian Army Units Wikiproject and is the first from that project that I've nominated for ACR. In terms of the battalion itself, the 2/18th's story is unknown by many Australians. Committed to a disastrous campaign that resulted in the capture of the greater part of a whole Australian division, the 2/18th had a very brief combat history and few of its personnel received high honours. Nevertheless, I found the human side of their story fascinating and read Burfitt's history of the battalion cover-to-cover in only two days. The article has recently undergone a successful GA nomination and I look forward to working with reviewers to improve it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support with minor comments:

  • Enjoyed the article - as you say, the human side is important here. Minor points follow:
  • "a grazier" - is this a farmer who keeps cattle? It's not a term I'm familiar with.
  • "In mid-1940, although fighting had not yet spread to the Pacific, concerns amongst the Allies about the strength of the defences around Singapore and Malaya in the event of a Japanese attack had led to the British requesting that the Australian government send troops to act as garrison forces in the area." - This was quite a busy sentence, possibly worth breaking in two.
  • "and while the fighting raged elsewhere," - additional comma after "and"?
  • "the battalion contacted the Japanese for the first time" - "came into contact with the Japanese"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking a look. I've added a link for grazier and made a couple of tweaks to deal with these points. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images - the only problematic one is File:2 18th Battalion AIF Unit Colour Patch.PNG which needs a {{PD-ineligible}} or alternative for the underlying work. Otherwise fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, thanks for taking a look. Just to clarify, are you saying that it should use "PD-ineligible" as well as "self|cc-by-sa-3.0", or just "PD-ineligible"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was more concerned about the original work - which you can't lay copyright to. Your digitisation of it may or may not attract copyright. I'd be surprised if it did, frankly, but whether you chose to CC-BY-SA it or not is your choice. Just remember to keep the copyright of the original file and of your digitisation different in your head, that's the main thing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The design itself stems from orders (words) written in minutes produced by the Secretary of the Military Board in 1939/40 and further instructions written in 1941 (which in effect actually date back further to the divisional orders of 1915). The 1941 ruling was that 2nd AIF battalions were to adopt the colours of the World War I equivalent battalion on a grey backing of a shape determined by their divisional assignment (oval in this case, due to it being part of the 8th Division). My understanding is that UCPs were largely then produced by the battalions themselves contacting local suppliers (sometimes in Australia, but also sometimes overseas) to create the physical items based upon the words of the minutes/instructions. These UCPs were then placed on uniforms worn by the unit's personnel. The personnel were then photographed wearing these patches in 1941 and I then based my file upon my interpretation of the minutes/instructions and black and white photos of the personnel in these uniforms. In this regard, what file should I count as the "orginal file" from which to determine the copyright and even if I can isolate one image in particular, who actually held copyright of the patch? The secretary who wrote the minute? The government that the secretary worked for? The staff officer in the Army who decided the colours of the 1st AIF battalions in 1915? Or the company that sewed the patch in 1941? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to original file, that's exactly why we're going with ineligible, which if I may correct myself, is {{PD-shape}} specifically. I would therefore believe it best to consider your digitization PD-shape as well, because it's the same thing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a fair call. I've updated the image licence accordingly. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the following comments:

  • Great to see these "POW" battalions getting some work, well done.
  • "where more complex exercises were undertaken, including at brigade and divisional levels" - suggest you introduce which brigade and division here instead of at the end of the next para, but see the next comment
  • "Along with the 2/19th and 2/20th Battalions, it was assigned to the 22nd Brigade, within the 8th Division" - suggest "which formed part of"
  • "release an Indian division to replace the Australians in May" - suggest a link to Indian Army during World War II
  • "The rigours of jungle training and the summer heat had an impact on the men, though, and..." - suggest the comma after men is errant
  • Where you indicate moves of the bn, I suggest you indicate a compass direction and/or a proximity to a river/border if possible. In the absence of a map, it would give an indication to the reader of where they were going. Like you have already done with the move to Mersing.
  • "the 2/18th withdrew south 10 miles (16 km) to Jemaluang on orders" - suggest "the 2/18th was ordered to withdraw south 10 miles (16 km) to Jemaluang"
  • the Nithsdale estate/Jemaluang road ambush was a brilliantly executed ambush and a highlight of this unit's service (I remember studying it...), a simple map would complement the text (probably more for FAC than ACR, sorry, but I can dream)
  • "but the 2/18th maintained a constant patrol" - suggest "the 2/18th patrolled constantly"
  • "but the defenders were eventually forced back amidst heavy indirect fire and overwhelming numbers" suggest replacing "amidst" with "by"
  • "As a part of this, the Australian forces were concentrated into 7-mile" - add "a" after into
  • suggest you add main article links to Malayan Campaign and Battle of Singapore at the top of the respective sections

Again, good job. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your review, I've made a few tweaks per your comments above. Regarding the map, I wish I could comply but unfortunately my map marking/drawing is terrible. At Duntroon, orders and IMAP were fine, but my talcs were a dog's breakfast. I would ask for help over at the Graphics Lab, but my last request (for Battle of Wareo) hasn't attracted any punters, so it is unlikely that this would either. Still, maybe one day User:SpoolWhippets will come back. He did some excellent work for my Bougainville campaign articles and the Battle of Milne Bay which Hawkeye and myself recently put through FA. Anyway, thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is an excellent article. I have the following comments and suggestions for ways it could be further improved:

  • Given the article's length, the lead should be expanded to a couple of paragraphs
  • "it was sent to Singapore to strengthen the British colony's defences in 1941" - given that the unit was stationed in northern Malaya, this wording should probably be tweaked
  • "with a strength of 793 men" - do any of the sources explain why the battalion was considerably below its authorised strength when it left Australia?
  • "The rigours of jungle training and the summer heat" - 'summer heat' seems a bit out of place when discussing the equatorial tropics (and it was the northern winter, to the extent it made much difference!)
  • If the 2/18th managed to ambush a battalion on 26 January, it seems unlikely that they inflicted 1000 fatalities - this would have been roughly the entire strength of the Japanese force
  • "were assaulted frontally in two landings, which were resisted strongly" - this is a little bit awkward, and I think that it could be simplified (eg, "strongly resisted two frontal assaults during the day")
  • If you develop this article to FA level (and I hope that you do!) a map of Malaya marked up to show the locations relevant to the battalion's history would be excellent Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, I think I've covered off on your points above, except the map. One day, maybe I will learn how to use Inkscape, but so far all my attempts have been worse than awful, so I am beholden to the goodwill of volunteers at the Gaphics Lab and based on past experience, no one there seems interested in these topics. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a map request to the Graphics Lab in the hope that someone there might be keen. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • I reviewed at GA and am satisfied it also meets the A class requirements.
    • I have completed a light copy edit, so pls check I didn't alter any meanings. If you don't like the changes pls revert.
    • Good work. Anotherclown (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The 2/18th Battalion was an infantry battalion of the Australian Army, which served during World War II." I prefer: The 2/18th Battalion served in World War II as an infantry battalion of the Australian Army. (Per LEAD, try to avoid starting "the battalion was a ... battalion ...", and rules like "put things as close to what they modify as you can" are more important in the lead paragraph than elsewhere; "which" doesn't modify "Army". "that" would be slightly preferred to "which", but "serving" is fine too.)
    • I changed it to "The 2/18th Battalion was an Australian Army infantry unit that served during World War II." Does that work? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the 2/18th was sent to Singapore and Malaya to strengthen the defences of the British colonies in February 1941 due to Allied concerns about a possible Japanese attack": Since "due to" modifies the whole clause, it's better to replace it by "owing to" or "because of". "The cancellation was due to rain" is fine because "cancellation" is a noun. But here, WP:Checklist#because is relevant I think, and I shortened it up; see if you approve. - Dank (push to talk)
  • It would really be better to have commas between independent clauses. I try to give people some leeway because the lack of a comma often isn't a grave sin, in fact it's quite common in modern writing ... and then I regret being lax, because the independent clauses get longer and longer, and harder to parse without the comma. I got the rest, please get these: "Throughout the night of 9/10 February, minor clashes occurred as patrols were sent out and following receipt", "As the Japanese continued to advance into the outskirts of Singapore throughout 14 February, the Australian position was threatened with being isolated and plans".
    • Reworded. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result of a misinterpretation of orders": Misinterpreting their orders. Please see WP:Checklist#because. I think I got them all in this one, but in general, search for "due to" and "as a result" and see if you can do without them.
  • "a 40 kilometres (25 mi) perimeter". - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted. I've turned the adjective on and changed it to read miles first for consistency with the other ranges as the majority of the sources for this topic use miles. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "counter-attack": Is that in Macquarie's? No hyphen in AmEng or BritEng.
  • "the north-west coast of the island": You're not hyphenating southeast, southwest, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the hyphen to all of them, as that is how Macquarie's presents them. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate you taking a look at the article, Dan. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I enjoy it, and I feel us getting closer every day to creating something definitive, which makes me proud. Excellent work as always, Rupert. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 1 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2/18th_Battalion_(Australia)&oldid=506954808"