Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/5th 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 by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/5th Battalion (Australia) edit

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/5th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another Second Australian Imperial Force infantry battalion. This one formed part of the 17th Brigade, which formed part of the 6th Division; it was only of only two Australian infantry battalions to fight against all the major Axis powers during the war. The article has recently passed a GA nomination and I would like to improve it further through the ACR process. Unfortunately, I only have the battalion history book for another three or four weeks, so I'm hoping to try to conclude the review in that time. Thank you to all who stop by. Thank you for your time. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I copyedited down to North Africa, Greece and Syria 1941–42. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anotherclown, Ian Rose, Nick-D, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, Parsecboy, and Zawed: G'day, all, sorry for the ping. I have to return my main source for this article in three weeks, so I'm hoping some of you might be able to review? @Anotherclown: I have expanded the post war details a bit, based on your comment at GAN. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- I've just had a go at the lead and infobox, will try and return later this w/e for further copyediting/review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Ian. I appreciate your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotchecked the rest of the article for consistency of "it" (the battalion) vs. "they" (the personnel), and made other prose tweaks. I don't feel comfortable supporting without reading every word but if the other reviewers are happy, coords pls don't hold up promotion on my account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
  1. Link Puckapunyal in the lead
  2. Put (2nd AIF) after Second Australian Imperial Force
  3. The four rifle companies are hardly a nucleus, as they make up most of the battalion
  4. Link Port Melbourne, Victoria
  5. "the majority of the prisoners... The majority of the battalion," Overused phrase
  6. We can also afford to lose a "subsequently" or two
  7. "totaling" should be "totalling"
  8. "Due to the entry of Japan into the war, the battalion was subsequently ordered to return to Australia following a request by the Australian government as they were needed for the fighting in New Guinea." This is not correct. The British government decided to send the 6th Division to defend Indonesia. See Long, Greece, Crete and Syria, pp. 549-550
  9. "In early July, the battalion finally received orders to return to Australia, as the threat passed," -> "had passed"
  10. "the 17th Brigade was despatched to relieve Kanga Force" No, the 17th Infantry Brigade was sent to reinforce Kanga Force.
  11. "where they embarked on two Liberty ships, the Charles Steinmetz and Barsfontein". While the former was a liberty ship, the latter was not. It was a Dutch ship chartered by USASOS. And you have the name wrong too; it was the Boschfontein Here's a picture of it.
    FWIW, the 2/5th Battalion War Diary called it the "Bos Fontein". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "In 1948, the Citizens Military Force was re-constituted" Should be Citizen Military Forces

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hawkeye7: Thanks, Hawkeye, I think I've got these. These are my edits: [1]. Please let me know if there is anything else you think needs work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, external links check out / no dead links, no duplicate links, all images have alt text, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD and have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look ok (no action req'd).
    • Should the lead mention Crete? (I think I mentioned this in the GA review but don't think we ended up doing so - was there a reason for this? If so then disregard of cse).
    • Prose here is a little repetitive: "After the battalion's personnel had assembled, between November 1939 and April 1940 the battalion..." ("the battalion" twice seems a little redundant).
    • There are a couple of longish paragraphs you might consider splitting:
      • The second paragraph of the "New Guinea 1942–45" section (perhaps break at "The battalion did not take part in any fighting")
      • The last paragraph of the "New Guinea 1942–45" section (perhaps break it at "Finally, late in the war...")
    • "Consisting primarily of small unit actions which inflicted proportionately heavy casualties..." do you mean "Consisting primarily of small unit actions which inflicted proportionately heavy casualties on both sides..."? I was a little confused on the exact meaning of this sentence. Perhaps clarify?
    • "The battalion was subsequently disbanded in early February 1946 while at Puckapunyal in Victoria..." Although you mention Puckapunyal in a few places earlier in the text this is the first time you mention that it is in Victoria. You should probably do that at first use I'd suggest instead.
    • The Bn's total casualty figures as per the AWM of 216 killed and 390 wounded are a little different from those available in Johnston The Proud 6th, p. 242 which states "149 KIA, 39 DOW, 5 DOAS, 401 WIA, 115 POW" - perhaps include these in a footnote to acknowledge the different information available?
    • Also you might consider including the casualty figures available in Johnston The Proud 6th for each campaign the bn was involved in (where you don't already have overall campaign figures). These are as fols:
      • Libya: 26 KIA, 6 DOW, 60 WIA (p. 242)
      • Greece: 18 KIA, 2 DOW, 28 WIA, 55 POW (p. 243)
      • Crete: 2 KIA, 1 DOW, 3 WIA, 58 POW (p. 243)
      • Syria: 9 KIA, 5 DOW, 28 WIA, 2 POW (p. 243)
      • Wau-Salamaua: 77 KIA, 15 DOW, 2 DOAS, 165 WIA (p. 244)
      • Aitape-Wewak: 27 KIA, 10 DOW, 2 DOAS, 116 WIA (p. 244)
    • I fixed a typo and a duplicate link and added a wikilink, these were my edits [3]. Anotherclown (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Anotherclown: Thanks for the review, AC. I think I've dealt with these issues. Please let me know if there is anything else that you think needs adjustment. These are my edits: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I might swap "battle" and "combat" in the last line of the first paragraph in the formation section. Something about "battalion into battle" grates on my ears.
  • HMT Ettrick is probably worth a red link - seems to have been a liner, so the ship should be notable.
  • What happened to the remainder of the men who were sent to Crete? About 70 men were sent, and the casualty total only accounts for 64.
  • "ailing to Port Moresby from Milne Bay on the MV Duntroon, an advance party of two companies from the battalion was flown into Wau on 24 January to hastily reinforce the small force around Ballams, with the remainder – totalling about 450 men – arriving on 29 January, after which they secured the airfield, which was now under direct Japanese fire, as the two companies that had arrived earlier were pulled back from Ballams" - this is overly long and should be split. I'd probably put the break "..the small force around Ballams. The remainder &ndash totalling..."
  • Made a few tweaks - please check them for accuracy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Parsecboy: Thanks for your time. Your changes look good to me. Unfortunately the stats for Crete probably won't ever match up as it seems some men remain unaccounted for. Equally, the main work on the battalion - Trigellis-Smith - is annoyingly light on the detail about the battalion's involvement in the fighting on Crete. I made the following edits: [5] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me, great work as usual! Parsecboy (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2/5th_Battalion_(Australia)&oldid=704075864"