Talk:3rd Division (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

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)