Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/4th Armoured Brigade (Australia)

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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

The 4th Armoured Brigade was probably the most important Australian armoured unit of World War II. Formed in early 1943 as part of the process of reorganising the Army for jungle warfare, it provided well trained units to support most major Australian Army options from September 1943 until the end of the war. As the Army's frontline armoured brigade, and only armoured brigade from 1944, it was also responsible for trialling and developing new tank variants. The brigade was disbanded in 1946, but two units with connections to it continue to form part of the Army.

As there's no single cohesive history of this brigade, I've developed the article from several sources and think that it provides comprehensive coverage of the unit (with a focus on its history as an organisation as its fighting elements were attached to other units when deployed to combat zones). It passed a GA nomination in January this year, and has been further expanded and copy-edited. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this for GA, and I have reviewed the changes since then and believe it meets the A-class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Combat operations (but there wasn't much to do) and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - only a few minor suggestions / cmts:
- You might consider adding the campaigns its subordinate units were involved in to the infobox.
  - Done Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 4th Armoured Brigade's commanding officer from its establishment until its disbandment was Brigadier Denzil Macarthur-Onslow." I question the terminology used here IRT "commanding officer". In my experience in the Australian Army this is a term used at unit level (i.e. battalion or regiment), while "commander" is used at brigade level. It is of course possible that the terminology was different during this period though (as I only feel that old), however, from checking the reference (Hopkins, p. 316) he uses "Commander" as well so I'd suggest amending this.
  - Thanks for that correction: I wasn't aware that the terminology changes higher up the ladder, and "commander" is clearer for readers as well - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if a link to our article on Tanks in the Australian Army should be included in the "See also" section?
  - Yes, I'm not sure why I didn't add it - now done. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a very minor inconsistency in the presentation of isbns (some use hyphens others do not). Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for catching this - I've just standardised them. Thanks also for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ -- nice work as usual, Nick, just some brief points:

Prose/style looked pretty good to me, copyedited a bit as usual so pls let me know any concerns. Just a formatting point: I think we should lose the flag icon in the infobox and its associated country link.
- Agreed - I've removed the flag Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tks -- I was thinking we could lose the Australia link as modern countries aren't generally linked, unlike obsolete political units like Empire of Japan for instance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an expert on armoured units but structure and level of detail in the article seemed appropriate.
Sources: reliable and I didn't spot any formatting errors.
Images: all photos licensed appropriately (pre-1946 Australian therefore PD-1996) but the infobox image looks a bit suss as it carries PD-1996 but also the legend "still under US copyright", and for an image produced after 1946 the second point would be true. I'd have thought we should lose PD-1996 and just go with PD-Australia and the note that the AWM asserts it's free of restrictions -- maybe Nikkimaria could check and advise.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that whoever added the claim that it's under US copyright is correct: the graphic is an Australian Govt image created in 1943, so is clearly PD in Australia and the US. I think that the PD-1996 tag is necessary to noted that this is copyright free in the US as well, with the PD-Australia tag not being enough in isolation. I've tweaked the record on Commons which should clarify things. Thanks for your review and edits Ian. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree as far as that goes. The actual design is 1943 so I assume that satisfies PD-1996 but the image of it seems to be 1946, which generally means you'd have to rely on the "free of known restrictions" assertion from the AWM, as any image from 1946 and after doesn't satisfy PD-1996 -- hence my interest in Nikki's take... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would call that a 2D design, which would mean that the photograph date doesn't matter as a simple reproduction. And as a Crown design, this is now PD in both Australia and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great, tks Nikki -- with Nick's latest tweak it should be fine then. Happy to support, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks also from me Nikki, and thanks again for your review Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 31 March 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.