Talk:27th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skinny87 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   'It was raised in 1915 as part of the First Australian Imperial Force as part of Australia's contribution to World War I.' - Repetition of 'as part of'

   'Between 1948 and 1965 the battalion was re-raised and disbanded a number of times and became part of the Royal South Australia Regiment.' - I'd add 'eventually' to the latter part of the sentence, as it didn't occur for a while.

   I think a little context is needed for the 27th's formation, ie (I presume) it was formed because of the expansion of the AIF and the general need for formations during war. Unless I'm mistaken, then ignore me.

   Are there any more details about what the battalion did in Gallipoli? Given that it was there for two months, I assume it must have seen some action? Did it suffer any casualties during that period, or inflict any Turkish casualties?

   'On 4 July they struck again, this time at Hamel, where the Australians achieved a considerable success' - I would rewrite to emphasize that it was the Germans who 'struck again'

   'In 1951, the compulsory training scheme was reintroduced and as a result the size of many CMF units swelled,[27] however, the scheme was suspended in 1959[28] and this, coupled with the introduction of the Pentropic divisional structure, resulted in a significant drop in the number of active CMF soldiers and a reorganisation of the existing units in which a number of infantry battalions were disbanded or amalgamated together to form six new State-based regiments.' - Majorly long sentence that could do with being cut into two or even three to improve flow.

I think I've dealt with these now, but given that I've expanded the article a bit there might be other prose issues that might have crept in. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'm a little stumped by the First World War section of this article. For a battalion that lost more than 700 men as casualties during their fighting in Gallipoli and the Western Front, the details of that section seem to be only slightly more than a basic chronology. All we get are a series of wiki-linked battle names and the odd mention that they captured some artillery pieces. This is odd contrast to the Second World War section; despit eht ebattalion only seeing combat for a few months, we get some good details about patrolling and skirmishing, and even before seeing combat they're being bombed in Darwin and organizing defences. I don't mean this as a real criticism, but the first section doesn't seem to have enough detail.

As a summary article, I know that the majority of detail should go into the individual battle articles, but still. If possible, I think some more First World War details would be good for context and overall reader interest. I was more interested in the Second World War section than the First World War One, despite the battalion doing relatively little in the former.

I will try to dig something out of the WWI official histories online. It might take a couple of days, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded it now as per my comment below. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Apart from a few minor grammatical points, my main concern is the First World War section, which doesn't seem to have enough context for the numerous battles the battalion was engaged in. Skinny87 (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I will see what I can do to address these concerns over the next couple of days. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded it pretty much as far I can with the sources at hand. I'm trying to get a copy of the battalion history that was written in 1921, but so far can only find it at the Qld State Library (given that I don't have time to get there at the moment, that trip will have to wait until Christmas). Would you mind taking another look now anyway? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That is some fantasic expansion, AR. It loosk great now, and I can't see any problems, so I'll promote it. Skinny87 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)