Talk:Papuan Infantry Battalion

Casualties

The casualty figures originally used in this article (were 38 killed in action, 13 died of wounds, 10 missing (believed killed) and 98 wounded) are those cited by the AWM and Sinclair as being for the entire PIR, not just PIB. As such I have removed them and replaced them with those listed in Byrnes for PIB only (32 killed, 15 missing, 42 died, 25 wounded).Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for informal review

@AustralianRupert:@Nick-D:@Hawkeye7:@Cinderella157:@Ian Rose:@Peacemaker67: Hello all. I have worked on this article offline for nearly the last 5 years and finally finished a draft today. If any of you have some time available I was hoping you might be able to look over it for quality assurance please? Of course I realise its quite a long article so I understand this might be a big ask. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated though. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Would be happy to, though I have a few things on my plate atm (real world and here). You won't be at the bottom of my list. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day, AC, epic work. Thanks for pushing through and finishing the draft. I have performed some very minor tweaks, and will keep looking. A couple of minor suggestions. Firstly, a few more images are probably needed to break up the text e.g. in the Initial prep, Salamaua and Ramu Valley sections: I will have a hunt around and see if maybe I can find some. Secondly, some of your ISBNs have hyphens and some don't. Thirdly, some of your sentences use introductory commas and some don't. (These are very minor points, of course). Anyway, I will come back a bit later. Cheers, mate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding these images AR and for your other edits, much appreciated. I'll see what else I can add when I have some free time. Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Initial comments by Cinderella157

Hi AC, I have read through the article. It is a good read. While reading, I was looking for general observations and to get a feel for the article in the first instance, rather than concentrating on point-by-point.

• Can I suggest that New guinea.png might be a better first map.
• The sentence structure tends to the complex eg "Two brigades from the 8th Division were dispatched to Singapore and then Malaya in February 1941, while a Militia battalion would be stationed between Port Moresby and Thursday Island, an AIF battalion would garrison Rabaul on New Britain, and the 8th Division's third brigade—less the battalion at Rabaul—would be dispersed piecemeal in Timor and Ambon." This affects readability.
• The AWM caption for the image is: "WAIWAI, NEW GUINEA. 1942-10. CAPTAIN T. GRAHAMSLAW, ANGAU, BRIEFING SERGEANT-MAJOR KATUE OF THE PAPUAN INFANTRY BATTALION AND NATIVE POLICE OF THE ROYAL PAPUAN CONSTABULARY PRIOR TO THEIR DEPARTURE ON A PATROL." As an aside, Grahamslaw has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of biography and a book. He might be worthy of an article.
• There are many fractured sentences (ie missing words or the like) - eg "Recognised for their skills in the jungle, the Papuans, like the New Guineans elsewhere, had been used in reconnaissance patrols prior to attacks or to locate positions suitable for used by artillery forward observers."
• Too many "and"s? "Moving via a route which avoided the Japanese, C Company and Battalion Headquarters transited Yule Island on 23 September, and after departing Kairuku, crossed the Owen Stanley Range to Garaina, and then to Popoi on the Waria River, with some men continuing to Ioma."
• I think that the punctuation (and particulary commas) could be reviewed. I would note (IMH understanding) that qualifying or parenthetic clauses should be preceded and followed by commas. I note instances where this could be addressed. As a more general example: "On 4 September a force including the 2/2nd Pioneer Battalion and engineers from 2/6th Field Company married up with B Company, PIB at Kirkland's Crossing after moving overland from Tsili Tsili, and began to prepare the airfield." I would write this as: "On 4 September, a force, including the 2/2nd Pioneer Battalion and engineers from 2/6th Field Company, married up with B Company PIB, at Kirkland's Crossing, after moving overland from Tsili Tsili, and began to prepare the airfield." - though this is still a complex sentence.
  • See also: "The Japanese then occupied Salamaua, and after leaving a section at the river, the men of the NGVR moved south to Mubo." I would write this as: "The Japanese then occupied Salamaua and, after leaving a section at the river, the men of the NGVR moved south to Mubo." Removing the parenthetic phrase, this would read: "The Japanese then occupied Salamaua and the men of the NGVR moved south to Mubo."
  • Also: "Meanwhile, in late May 1945, B Company, PIB under the command of Captain Leo Hunt relieved troops from 1 NGIB, who had been patrolling continuously in the central sector since the start of the campaign." "PIB", though an abbreviation, is a parenthetic phrase, even if it doesn't look right because it is an abbreviation. Technically, this reads that the PIB was under command of Capt Hunt? I might write this as:: "Meanwhile, in late May 1945, B Company, PIB, under the command of Captain Leo Hunt, relieved troops from 1 NGIB, who had been patrolling continuously in the central sector since the start of the campaign." Alternatively: "Meanwhile, in late May 1945, B Company PIB, under the command of Captain Leo Hunt, relieved troops from 1 NGIB, who had been patrolling continuously in the central sector since the start of the campaign."
  • And: "In January 1943 they intercepted Japanese forces north of Buna, and in the following month assisted in the destruction of Japanese remnants in Papua, killing 200 and capturing three prisoners." I would: "In January 1943, they intercepted Japanese forces north of Buna and, in the following month, assisted in the destruction of Japanese remnants in Papua – killing 200 and capturing three prisoners."

I appreciate that some have been taught that "and" is preceded by a comma and others, not. I am of the latter school but, having said that, I am not trying to impose a style. Rather, I think that the essential test is that the punctuation should read "aloud" with pauses of appropriate duration in the correct places. As a general observation, this could be improved.

• As a reader, I want to know where places are. There are references to many places but no (little) way for a reader to conceptualise where they are. There are a couple of ways to address this. Many places don't have links. Where there are, they either don't have a map or the map is of such a large scale as to be of no real use. More maps with detail of the particular conflict areas. Where a location is not shown on such a map, a relative location may be written into the prose. You have used footnotes. These could also be used to describe localities outside the "readable prose".
• There are some matters of detail per the Kokoda Track Campaign. "The Gap" is a misnomer? "and the remaining battalions of the 30th Brigade—the 49th and 53rd Battalions—overland" - but not the 49th! There are some other details. See Kokoda Track Campaign and individual battles.
• Beware of jargon: "battalion Q Store". "NCOs" linked but not in full at first occurrence.
• In some places (IMHO) the supporting background material is a little too detailed and, to this extent, the article does not maintain focus.

I could offer to copy-edit but this may come across as very intrusive. I think you might have seen how I have worked with AR on the Kokoda Track battles? Having said that though, I have committed to work with AR on Cape Glouchester and have some pressing RW commitments for a bit. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for these points, I appreciate your time and insights. I've made changes [1] to hopefully address most of the specified points now, but the wider prose issues will need to wait for another day when its not so later. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also I realise I still haven't addressed the issue of "the Gap" yet - I haven't forgotten this. Its on the list. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Cinderella157: I've added a note about the "gap" now here [2]. Is this sufficient or would you recommend further changes? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for amending this, I see what you mean. Anotherclown (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)