Talk:3rd Division (Australia)

VC corrections

Just made a correction re the VCs awarded to men of the 3rd Div: They were not reservists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.128.51 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to start a whole Reservist-ARA debate here, I do not believe this comment to be strictly accurate. Both Corporal Reginald Roy Rattey and Private Frank Partridge were in the Militia, which in actual fact does make them Reservists. Reg Rattey was in the pre war CMF and then transferred to the AIF, although he remained serving in a Militia battalion. Patridge served in the Volunteer Defence Corps and was then conscripted into the Milita. The original clause in the article, which was removed, stated that these two men were the only two Reservists to have earned the VC. This is actually technically accurate, although I do not feel that the comment necessarily needs to be in the article as it does not really add anything to it. One final point, though - almost none, if not in fact none, of the VCs earned by Australian Army personnel prior to the Vietnam War, were earned by Regular Army soldiers. The point is moot, though, because the ARA did not exist until after WWII, and as such prior to that all infantry soldiers were either Reservists (be they volunteers or conscripts), or members of the AIF (who were not Regular soldiers, but rather either Reservists who'd volunteered twice (to join up and to go overseas), or just people straight from civvie street who'd also volunteered twice. Thus the whole debate really makes no sense whatsoever - what does it matter what terms of service they were under when they performed the acts they did? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Something to note

Just something to note -- future WA Premier Ross McLarty served with the 44th Battalion and received the Military Medal in January 1918. Gnangarra 04:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:3rd Division (Australia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: —Ed!^(talk) 15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Comments

   1. "it has the distinction of being the longest serving Australian Army division." - sounds a little editorialized. Could you word it to be more neutral?
      1. I'm not sure about this, it is actually a direct quote from the source. I've added the quotation marks. I'm open to rewording it, but can't think of how to do it without changing the meaning. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
         1. I replaced the word "distinction," see how it looks. My concern is that by using that word the article implies serving is a "distinction." —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
            1. Yes, that works. Good idea. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
   2. World War II, Home duties section: "Major General Stanley Savige, an experienced officer who had commanded at brigade level in the Middle East, took over command of the division" - did he command a brigade in combat? What was the contingency and why was he commanding in the Middle East? Needs a little context.
      1. I've clarified this now. Please let me know if this is okay AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
   3. Next section: "the division received reinforcements in June in the shape of the US 162nd Infantry Regiment." - sounds a little unencyclopedic.
      1. Reworded slightly. How does it read now? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
   4. "New Guinea, 1943–1944" section: Add a little context to this part so people don't have to link to another page. Who were they fighting? What were their aims?
      1. Slight tweak to specifically mention Japanese, and the task of clearing them from the island. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
   5. The "Structure" section looks very awkward. I would suggest integrating the OrBats directly into the relevant sections using Template:Command structure.
      1. Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
   6. "Commanding Officers" sections could be integrated into a table for easier reading.
      1. Done, but I've been burned with tables before. Some GA reviewers seem to ask for them to be removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
         1. Hmm, well that's not right. If they do that again, direct them to WP:TABLE, I think the case is pretty clearly laid out there for this list to be in one. —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
            1. Cheers, I'll try to remember that link. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
   7. Is there any info on any awards the Division won?
      1. I've added a few individual VCs that are mentioned in the texts, but there doesn't appear to be a comprehensive list that I can find. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
   8. I would also suggest putting some info in about anyone notable who fought as a member of the division...VC winners, future generals, otherwise notable people, etc. Surely plenty of notable Australians were a part of the unit during its existence.
      1. I've added a couple of VC recipients, but to be honest I'm not sure about this one, there doesn't appear to be list of notable members in the divisional history, so I'm not sure how to go about working out who should be mentioned. Ultimately, though, I think we need to be careful only to mention those that are notable for their service as part of the division, otherwise it could go too far. Not sure if this adequately answers your question, though, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass

5. It is stable:

   Pass

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass

7. Overall:

   On Hold for a few comments. Overall a very thorough article. —Ed!^(talk) 16:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

   1. Thanks for taking the time to review this article, I've responded above. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      1. Everything looks good now. Passing the GA. Very well done! —Ed!^(talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
         1. Thanks, Ed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3rd Division (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110905225940/http://15brigadeaasc.150m.com/ to http://www.15brigadeaasc.150m.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)