Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/20th Battalion (New Zealand)

< 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 Hog Farm (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

20th Battalion (New Zealand)

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

20th Battalion (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

In a change from my normal fare of military biographies, this nomination for A-Class is an article for a unit that served with the 2nd New Zealand Division during the Second World War. The 20th Battalion started the war as an infantry unit, and fought in Greece, Crete and then North Africa. It got decimated at El Alamein, following which it was converted to armour and went on to serve in Italy. This article is one of my earliest GAs, back in 2013. I have given it a bit of a polish on and off over the past six months and think it is ready for consideration for A-Class. Thanks in advance to all who stop by to comment. Zawed (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Looks like the copyright tags are wrong, though, since it appears they would fall under Crown Copyright / expired[1] and there's no indication they were ever released under a Creative Commons license. (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(t · c) buidhe 23:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In theory, that painting should be PD as McIntyre was an official war artist so the Crown has copyright and all Crown works dated 1944 or earlier is PD. However, I replaced the image. Zawed (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, sorry, I don't have time to do a full review at the moment; I will try to come back later but at the moment I have a few quick comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • exact date of formation, if known?
  • link company on first mention
  • "transport personnel" -- do we know what vehicles they had?
  • "the SS Dunera" -- usually we drop the definite article for ships, I believe
  • "including brigade level exercises": link brigade
  • "by 7:30am" and "at 3:30am" --> non breaking spaces
  • link 10th Infantry Brigade
  • "also involved the 28th Battalion": link for the 28th?
  • "seabourne" --> "seaborne"
  • "the capture of Galatas" --> perhaps mention by whom
  • if possible, a photo for the early part of the article would be a great addition

Thanks for taking a look, hope you get the opportunity to take a further look. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking rearguard
  • "intensive desert training" --> "intensive desert warfare training"?
  • "relieve Tobruk, then under siege" --> "relieve the siege of Tobruk"? This would enable a link to that article
  • "and dealt to several" --> typo?
  • "dealing with" --> "destroying" or "damaging"?
  • seems slightly inconsistent "4th Brigade" v. "6th Infantry Brigade"
  • "made 260 German soldiers prisoners of war and captured three 88 mm guns" --> "captured 260 German soldiers and three 88 mm guns"?
  • "It took him until daylight for him to reestablish" --> "It took him until daylight to reestablish"
  • in the Operation Crusader section, is it possible to summarise the casualties the battalion suffered; given it was destroyed it seems like they would be significantly high
  • I have added a couple of sentences regarding casualties. I discovered I had misinterpreted what the source was saying regarding LOB personnel, so have revised the first part of the rebuilding section. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 17 June, the battalion left for Mersa Matruh, a 320-kilometre (200 mi) journey" --> "On 17 June, the battalion lcommenced a 320-kilometre (200 mi) journey". The writing gets a bit repetitive here with mentioning Mersa Matruh a few times, and is actually properly introduced in the next sentence, so it is probably best dropped first up
  • link wadi
  • "over as commander of 4th Brigade. Freyberg had been wounded and the commander of 4th Brigade, Brigadier Lindsay Inglis, took over command of the division" --> "over as commander of the 4th Brigade after its previous commander, Brigadier Lindsay Inglis, had taken over the division when Freyberg had been wounded."
  • link XXX Corps (United Kingdom) and the 5th Indian Brigade
  • "assist 30 Corps, by being part in what would be known as the" --> "assist 30 Corps, taking part in the"?
  • "positions of 19th Battalion" --> "positions of the 19th Battalion"
  • "with three squadrons of tanks": link squadron
  • "European theater" --> "European theatre"
  • "Pacific theater" --> " Pacific theatre"
  • link 23rd Battalion
  • move the furlough link to the first mention
  • "the regiment's A Company was the" --> "the regiment's A Squadron was the"?

CommentsSupport by CPA

edit
  • participated in the Battles of Greece and later in Crete not "on Crete"?
  • captured 260 German soldiers and three 88 mm guns. No convert?
  • On the night of 25 November, along with the 18th Battalion Night of 24/25 or 25/26 November?
  • I see three "However"s can you remove one?
  • the middle of the afternoon of 27 June Why not around 3 pm? It's in the middle of the afternoon.
  • some sections of the New Zealand government for the 2nd New Zealand Division No New Zealand Government? The rest of the countries' governments in the article do use a capital letter.
  • Savio the next day, having advanced 7 miles (11 km) Okay I just read kilometres as the primary unit and now miles is a primary unit maybe standardise them?
  • Galatas, 42nd Street, Withdrawal to Sphakia, Middle East 1941–44, Tobruk 1941 --> "Galatas, 42nd Street, Withdrawal to Sphakia, Middle East 1941–1944, Tobruk 1941"
  • These battle honours are taken directly from the source, so I am reproducing them as they appear there. I think that takes precedence over the stle guide. Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defence of Alamein Line, Ruweisat Ridge, El Mreir, Alam el Halfa, North Africa 1940–42 --> " Defence of Alamein Line, Ruweisat Ridge, El Mreir, Alam el Halfa, North Africa 1940–1942"
  • Pisciatello, The Senio, Santerno Crossing, Bologna, Sillaro Crossing, Idice Bridgehead, Italy 1943–45 --> " Pisciatello, The Senio, Santerno Crossing, Bologna, Sillaro Crossing, Idice Bridgehead, Italy 1943–1945"
  • Maybe standardise the ISBNs I can see both 10 and 13 letters ISBNs?
    • I'm actually not sure how to do that without creating creating check sum errors. Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You get a Bot to do it. I've done this for you, although I don't thinks necessary; there is a Bot that goes round changing ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for that! But it is not just a matter of adding 978-, there are also other numbers to change, how did you know the correct numbers? Zawed (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The check digit needs recalculating. The algorithm is described in our ISBN article. Here's the code of a Perl script I use: 
          #!/bin/perl

use English;
use Business::ISBN qw(%ERROR_TEXT);
use strict;
use warnings;

my $arg = shift;
die "usage: isbn <isbn>\n" unless $arg;

my $isbn = new Business::ISBN ($arg) or
        die "invalid isbn\n";
die $Business::ISBN::ERROR_TEXT{$isbn->error}, "\n" unless $isbn->is_valid;
print $isbn->as_isbn13->as_string (), "\n";

exit 0;

In the infobox

  • "1939–45" --> "1939–1945"
  • "Infantry (1939–42)" --> "Infantry (1939–1942)"
Done. Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Armoured (1943–45)" --> "Armoured (1943–1945)"
  • "~800 personnel" Replace the tilde with a circa template.
  • Is the citation in the infobox needed?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look, I have responded above. Please note my comment RE the isbns. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CPA-5, just checking you are happy with this article? Zawed (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA5: Are you happy with this article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, checking in here, are you happy to support? Zawed (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

edit

Article looks good. I have some comments and suggestions. Please forgive this Australian's ignorance of New Zealand.

  • Lead: "embarking for Italy in October 1943 to join the Eighth Army" I would suggest "re-join", as the New Zealand Division had been part of the Eighth Army since Operation Crusader, and suggest adding "British".
  • "fighting in actions at Orsogna and later at Cassino" Instead of linking the places, I suggest linking Moro River Campaign and Battle of Monte Cassino.
  • "The new division would require nine battalions of infantry and consequently, several infantry battalions were formed from 1939 to 1940 with New Zealand volunteers." Not nine? But that brings up a question: was the 2nd New Zealand Division a volunteer force, or was it maintained by conscription?
    • It was actually ten infantry battalions: the 18th through to 26th, plus the 28th Māori Battalion, which was kind of floated between the brigades as required for extra fire power. The 27th was a machine-gun battalion. The initial personnel were volunteers but later in 1940, conscription was introduced.Zawed (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question: this implies that the division was raised on the British establishment of nine battalions to the division, and therefore with British equipment? Was it equipped in New Zealand or in the Middle East?
  • "The 20th Battalion was the third such unit to be raised for the 2NZEF" The battalions were numbered in the order they were formed?
    • Kind of. The battalions were raised in echelons substantially corresponding to the brigades, each brigade having one battalion from each of the Military Districts. 4th Brigade with 18th to 20th was raised first, then the 5th with 21st to 23rd and the 6th last, with 24th to 26th. Within that, each battalion was trained at a camp associated with a particular military district, going north to south; 18th, 21st and 24th from the Northern Military District, 19th, 22nd, 25th, Central Military District, and 20th, 23rd and 26th Southern Military District. Zawed (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its personnel, all volunteers, were from the South Island of New Zealand... They were formed into four rifle companies, designated A to D and corresponding to the Canterbury, Southland, Nelson-Marlborough-West Coast and Otago districts." Were they affiliated with units from these districts? Was the territorial affiliation maintained?
    • There was no direct affiliation with the Territorial Force units although there were quite a few personnel that volunteered. The battle honours did get passed onto the TF units associated with the Southern Military District (which covered most of the South Island, and therefore the area from where most of the original personnel were drawn). Zawed (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason I asked this one is that Australian battalions had territorial affiliations with particular states, and reinforcements were drawn from those states, preserving the battalion character. Talking about the 1NZEF, Charles Bean wrote: "In New Zealand the system was that each of the battalions and mounted regiments of the New Zealand Army provided a company or a squadron in the expeditionary force; these companies and squadrons carried the names and badges of their old regiments". But this referred to 1NZEF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link anti-tank rifle
  • SS Dunera should link to HMT Dunera. It is famous in Australia.
  • Link 5th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht), Sidi Rezegh, Tobruk, San Bartolomeo in Galdo
  • "30 Corps" suggest "British XXX Corps"
  • "the brigade, now designated as the 4th Armoured Brigade" Link, since it has a separate article.
  • "Soon after this action, the regiment's tanks were replaced with the Sherman Firefly, which had a superior main gun to that previously used." All of them? Also: might as well say that the gun in question was the 17-pounder.
    • No, not all it seems. In the 19th Regiment, every troop got one Firefly according to a source I used for that, but I can't find a similar statement for the 20th Regiment. I have clarified this. Zawed (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While most of the German garrison quickly surrendered, some diehard elements were encountered who refused to surrender to either the New Zealanders or the Yugoslav partisans also present in the city. In fact, the partisans were reluctant to allow Germans to surrender to the New Zealanders at all." this leaves things up in the air a bit.
  • "it took several weeks for the New Zealand Government to decide whether the division would be needed for service in the Pacific theatre of operations." What was the decision? Was the plan to employ the whole of the 2nd NZ Division in Japan?
  • "The regiment was officially disbanded on 2 December 1945." In Italy?
  • "The battle honours awarded for its work as an infantry battalion were entrusted to the Canterbury Regiment, Otago Regiment, Southland Regiment, and The Nelson, Marlborough and West Coast Regiment." Do these regiments still exist? I tried finding their articles but none mention the 20th Battalion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has been changes in structure as the NZ Territorial Forces became streamlined - for example, it looks like the Otago and Southland Regiments were merged. The Wikipedia article for Otago and Southland Regiment omitted mention of the 20th, although the source does mention that the regiment perpetuates the honours of the 20th. I have added that to the regimental article now. Zawed (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, thanks for taking a look at this (and sorting the isbns as mentioned above). I have responded with my replies and edits to the article. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support! Zawed (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass
  • Sources generally appear to be of high quality.
  • Some concern about www.regiments.org, but it is used only for the battle honours.
  • Spot checks: fn 30, 52, 72, 111 -all okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 11 August 2021 (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/20th_Battalion_(New_Zealand)&oldid=1038316614"