Talk:Australian Army during World War I

Proposed restructure with aim of expansion (and hopefully improvement)

Gday. This thread follows on from a brief discussion here Talk:First_Australian_Imperial_Force#Partly_duplicative_articles.3F. BLUF - in places this article duplicates information from a number of other articles which makes it redundant in places (for instance pls see First Australian Imperial Force and the articles on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Divisions). As such I propose restructuring this article along similar lines to the Australian Army during World War II article (currently an A class article) and removing any information from this article that is duplicated in the source articles in order to create a more clear hierarchy of articles. Intent would be to merge any information removed back into the source articles (where appropriate). The hierarchy as I see it is that this article should be an overview of the Australian Army as an organisation during this period and would cover topics like the Home Army, AIF, AN&MEF, operations etc. in summary only, while the detail of these topics would be found in those articles themselves. Given that this proposal would ultimately entail removing quite a bit of the content currently in this article and replacing it with other content I don't feel being bold in this case would appropriate and am hoping to establish a consensus for this before starting (and maybe to get a few other editors interested in contributing to the process of rewriting it as well). I welcome any comments on this proposal. Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

G'day, mate. Yes, that seems a sensible proposal to me. I might be able to help, but as you know the next few months are going to be hectic at work, so I probably can't be relied upon, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Howdy - as I haven't had any objections I've just decided to be bold and crack on. Hopefully I'm not standing on anyone's toes. If someone has an issue with these changes pls feel free to let me know and I'll cease and desist. That said the vast bulk of the text that has been removed remains in the parent articles mentioned above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source on doctrine

Possible source on doctrine - Blaxland (2006) Strategic Cousins: Australian and Canadian expeditionary forces and the British and American Empires p. 34 [1]. It might take a while before I can obtain a copy though. Anotherclown (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also a couple of mentions in Stevenson (2012) To Win the Land Battle [2]. Anotherclown (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for suggestions

Recognising from the very beginning that this article is a hack job (on my part), it has essentially been written in reverse. As a higher level article it has mostly been written after the more detailed articles it summarises, so in many places I have simply attempted to adapt / summarise those articles to provide an overview of the topic (i.e. the Army and its components during this period). With that in mind I'm hoping for a few knowledgeable editors to review the article in its current state and let me know what you think (sanity check and for completeness pls). In particular I am hoping for feedback on the following:

1. Do the sections adequately summarise the topics presented?
2. Is the order logical, or could the structure be improved?
3. What additional information would be required to move the topic forward to GA?
4. Is the leadership section adequate?
5. Is their a succinct source available that anyone is aware of on doctrine that could be used to add a paragraph on this (my feeling is that mostly British doctrine was used as a matter of course, like all components of the BEF, although there would have been some variations adopted over time due to experience on the Western Front as Australian commanders took over senior posns)?

With this in mind I'd be most grateful for any editor interested in the topic to either make some suggestions or just to dive in and add any material / make any changes they feel are required. @AustralianRupert:, @Hawkeye7:, @Nick-D:, and @Peacemaker67: - you guys are fairly knowledgable on these topics in my experience so I would particularly value any input you might feel able to provide. I certainly appreciate you guys are busy with your own projects and real life but if you do have some time to assist with this article I think it would benefit from your insight / attention. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As a few comments

• The 'First Australian Imperial Force' section could be trimmed now that this is covered in the article on that topic
• The structure seems sensible
• More coverage of the home forces might be helpful
• I don't think that I've seen a succinct source on Australian doctrine of this era, though my understanding is that the Australian Army automatically adopted British doctrines and tactics (with some changes in emphasis though - Peaceful Penetration seems to have been a primarily Australian tactic, at least at first) Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Culturally related issue

Does not the song "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda" rate enough (e.g. be notable) to be mentioned in this article? Juan Riley (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What sources say that this is a highly significant song about this topic? Nick-D (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)