Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/10th Battalion (Australia)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/10th Battalion (Australia)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

2/10th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about a 2nd AIF infantry battalion raised primarily from South Australia for service during the Second World War. The battalion fought in North Africa, New Guinea and Borneo. The article went through a GA nomination in 2014 and has been improved upon since then by Peacemaker and myself. Thank you to all who stop by to help us improve it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I fixed the nomination's links.

  • Hello AR. The thing is I've heard and I saw a lot of British sources and people using hyphens in the ranks before and in WWII (well in the British Empire). After WWII the hyphen became archaic and I know before the war and during the war, most dominions still had a lot of British influences. So I guessed that the dominions like Australia back then used it with a hyphen. I would stick with the hyphen because it was a back-then rank in most of the British Empire before it got an update after the war. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support by Zawed

edit

That's my review complete. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: G'day, thanks for taking a look. I think these have all been dealt with now. These are the changes that have been made: [2]. Please let me know if you think any more changes are need. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I have not carried out any spot checks. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

edit
  • "..the battalion embarked for overseas." This feels like it is missing a word, maybe add "service" at the end?
  • Why does the infobox only list that it was part of 7th Division, while in the article it is also listed as being in the 6th and the 9th?
  • The infobox lists Thomas Daly as a "notable commander", but he is not mentioned at all in the prose, just in the list of commanders at the end, which hardly seems notable.
    • Added mention to the text now -- Daly rose to become a lieutenant general after the war (including a period as the Chief of the General Staff), so he seemed notable compared to the others who don't have wiki articles. I can remove him from the infobox if you feel it best. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess it depends on how you interpret "Notable commanders": Daly was a commander who was notable, but not notable for being the commander. That said, I'm happy enough with its inclusion now that there is explanation in the text, and it certainly isn't something I'm going to hold this up over. Harrias talk 08:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Verrier – a World War I veteran who had previously commanded the 43rd Battalion[9][10] – after the battalion's recruits had concentrated at Wayville, the 2/10th carried out initial training in the Adelaide Hills to the city's east at Woodside Camp, before moving to New South Wales on the east coast of Australia where further training was completed at Greta Camp and then Ingleburn." This is firstly a very long sentence trying to tell us too much, and secondly ambiguous. It could be read that either Under the command of Verrier, they concentrated at Wayville and then had initial training in the Hills, or that After concentrating at Wayville, they were placed under the command of Verrier, and then had initial training in the Hills. I would recommend splitting and clarifying this sentence.
  • "..and then in the middle of the month, as winter set in they were moved.." Move the comma from after "month" to after "set in".
  • Might be worth putting a note after "Hyderabad Barracks", because I got a bit confused with Hyderabad, India.
  • "..attacked the shoulders of the salient." What does this mean? Are there any wikilinks that can help?
  • "..were six missing and 15 wounded," Per MOS:NUM, either "six" and "fifteen" or "6" and "15".
  • "..on the Dutch passenger ship, Nieuw Amsterdam," No comma needed before Nieuw (because the definite article was used; if it was the indefinite article, then the comma would be right).
  • Pipe "Bombay" to Mumbai; there's a generation growing up that won't recognise Bombay.
  • "..conducting a passage of lines.." What does this mean?
    • Essentially an action that sees one unit move through another, usually to assume the task of the in place unit. Seen it done once at battalion level (only on exercise) -- can get a bit confusing. I imagine at brigade or higher, in contact, it would have been a nightmare. Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..in a fortnight of fighting, the battalion suffered.." No comma needed.
  • "The Battle of Shaggy Ridge proved to be the most significant action for the 2/10th.." Considering this is labelled the most significant action, there is very little detail provided about it. Are there any casualty figures, for example?
  • "..with a group of about 70 being.." Re-word to avoid the Noun plus -ing construction.

That's all from me, a good piece of work. Harrias talk 08:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: G'day, thanks for taking a look at this. I think I've gotten all your points above. These are my edits: [3]. If I've missed anything, please let me know. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great article as usual, nothing else from me. Harrias talk 08:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2/10th_Battalion_(Australia)&oldid=921109784"