Talk:Australian contribution to UNTAG/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 05:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

It's great to see such a comprehensive article on this topic - great work. I have the following comments:

• "A number of Australian Prime Ministers including Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser were politically very active internationally in their support of independence for Namibia while in office" - the 'A number' doesn't seem necessary given that these were the only PMs during the relevant period

 Done. Fixed, I have elaborated a bit. This covers a longer period including Menzies and McMahon now, it was not really clear before that this was what I meant.

• Why did the Hawke Government decide to commit troops to this mission, and when was the decision to do so made? The article has a focus on Fraser's role in the 1980s, but he wasn't in power at the time and was unlikely to have had much influence over the ALP government.

 Done. Fixed, I found a quote and reference from Hansard that describes this well. Fraser committed troops 10 years earlier. Whitlam was a vocal proponent of the plan even before then.

What source supports the statement that the decision made by the Fraser Government in 1979 effectively "bound successive Governments for the next decade"? This isn't how Cabinet decisions work in Australia (no cabinet can "bind" subsequent governments on any topic). The key thing here seems to be that the policy had bipartisan support, and the Hawke Government chose to maintain the Fraser Government's commitment as it agreed with this decision, as is explained later in the article. I'd suggest deleting this passage. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Done, I agree with your logic. AWHS (talk)

• Please provide page numbers for the official history and all the other printed references consulted

 Done. Fixed for almost all references.

• The para which begins with 'Each contingent consisted of over 300 soldiers' needs supporting references

 Done. Fixed. Mainly from Horner and the Official History.

• Ditto the para which begins with 'The Australian Army involvement in UNTAG started in February 1979'

 Done. Fixed

• "the notice was increased to a point where the Squadron was only earmarked and the contingency stocks were returned to depot" - 'the notice was increased' should probably be translated out of military English (I initially read this to mean that the level of readiness increased, and not the opposite)

 Done. Rewritten this section.

That's an excellent description of how this process works Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• "the notice was reactivated" - ditto

 Done. Fixed by rewriting.

• "indeed Senator Jo Vallentine said in Parliament that the Namibia operation nearly fell apart through lack of advance funding and Senator Jocelyn Newman called it disgraceful" - both politicians were from parties opposed to the government of the day, so this can't be taken at face value (though I suspect it's correct). What do independent sources say? - I suspect that David Horner will have covered this topic.

 Done. Fixed. You are right, Horner made mention of this, and mentioned the budget approval date etc.

• The paras which begin with "By December the two units that formed 1 ASC" and "The 1 ASC advance party" needs supporting references

 Done. Fixed

• "The fact that the Australian soldiers survived this operation without casualty was said to be a tribute to the 'training standards of the Australian Army and perhaps, a bit of good luck'" - why was this the case? The article doesn't describe what dangers these soldiers faced during the operation.

 Done. Have added a paragraph that provides good context and references.

• When and how was the second contingent formed, and did it initially take on the same duties as the first contingent?

 Done. Have added material about the formation of the second contingent, and the duties are now covered as a chronology.

• "offering violence" sounds a bit odd - how about "threatening violence" or similar?

 Done. Found a better quote from the Official History by Horner.

• The section on the rules of engagement is a bit confusing. What were the main features of the ROE used by the Australian troops? (and did they prove effective?)

 Done. Improved greatly I think, struggling to find a reference that describes this better, Have added content about weapons, clothing, deploying without weapons etc all under the same heading. They seem related issues.

• "Prior to the deployment there was some controversy in that the Government had not resolved the situation with regard to repatriation cover or peacekeeping force cover with respect to the Veterans' Entitlements Act and had also not made a declaration of whether there would be a declaration of operational service or not." - what did the government end up doing?

 Done. As well as I can. Horner made a mention of this, but there was little press other than the debate in Hansard. It took until 2001 for the declaration of operational service issue to be resolved, with the issue of the AASM.

• "Some said that this failed the test of commonsense" - who are these 'some', and what was their concern?

 Done. Mentioned the author of the letter to the editor of the Army Newspaper.

Can you add more on what his concerns where? This isn't clear to me (upgrading the medal after a review seems, at face value, sensible). Is the issue here the concerns which have been raised over the government creating and awarding new medals which duplicate other medals? (I read an interview with Peter Cosgrove last year in which he noted that he'd received more medals for his service in Vietnam in the last few years than he did during the war!). Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Done, I have added a few sentences from his letter. AWHS (talk)

OK, but you might want to consider whether the captain's views are worth including before this goes to A-class as there doesn't seem much too them really, unless this is a significant body of opinion (see WP:UNDUE) - the bit about service members having to apply for the medal is a classic can't-win for the authorities (if they tried to award the medals automatically they'd be criticized for missing someone - which would inevitably happen given that they won't have up-to-date contact details for many personnel, and their computer system may not be capable of determining eligibility automatically anyway). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• What did the rear party do? Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed this, found good material from Horner.

Thank you Nick for your comments, these are sensational, it might take be a little while to work through all of these.AWHS (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Max, those changes are looking really good. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nick, I have fixed all of these issues. Have also given it a good edit and added a couple of photos as well. This is now a much better article, thank you for your great comments, Andrew. AWHS (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, do you think that this could become a featured article? Andrew AWHS (talk)

This is looking fantastic Max. I've raised a couple of questions above, and will promote the article once they're addressed. I think that this does have lots of potential to reach FA status, but I'd suggest putting it through a Military History project A-class review first - it should pass this, and you'll receive some further feedback. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

All done, thank you very much for your review. AWHS (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, 470 views over the weekend. AWHS (talk)

Great work again Max. I'm looking forward to seeing this up for an A class review :) Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)