Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arthur Blackburn

< 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) 13:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Arthur Blackburn

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Arthur Blackburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Blackburn is the latest in my series on South Australian Victoria Cross recipients. He is arguably the state's most famous soldier, having won the VC at Pozières in WWI, then commanded a machine-gun battalion against the Vichy French, then an ad hoc brigade-sized force in Java against the Japanese. Captured, he spent the rest of the war being shipped from one place to another with a group of senior Allied POWs, and was liberated in Manchuria, of all places. I recently finished reading Andrew Faulkner's excellent (but huge) 2008 biography of Blackburn, which resulted in a significant expansion over several months. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, PM, nice work, as always. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the infobox years of service start date is 1914, but it should probably be 1911
  • suggest maybe moving the link for Gallipoli Campaign to earlier in the Gallipoli section (in the body of the article)
  • "Outer Harbour" --> "Outer Harbor" as a proper noun?
  • Blackburn returned to legal practice: rough date for this? Probably "In early 1917" would do
  • contentious period in the organisation --> "contentious period in the organisation's history"?
  • his words were chosen well and delivered with authority: suggest attributing this to Faulkner in text
  • labour in a industrial dispute --> "labour in an industrial dispute"
  • With the amalgamation of light horse regiments --> "Following the amalgamation of light horse regiments..."?
  • On 14 January, in --> suggest adding the year here, and removing it from "On 1 February 1942"
  • the Orcades armoury --> "the Orcades' armoury"
  • Melbourne is overlinked, as is Java, Boys anti tank rifle, Bandung, and Roy Inwood
  • "File:Football match between South Australian and Tasmanian members.JPG": probably should have a PD-AustraliaGov licence
  • I'm not sure about the use of the grenade image -- seems out of place in a bio, but it isn't a major concern if you don't agree
    G'day AustralianRupert, all done. Here are my edits. I reckon the Mills bomb is an iconic weapon of the Pozieres fighting Blackburn was involved in, and unfortunately there are no good pics of the aftermath of the battle that I could find on the AWM website, so decided on it as a reasonable illustration of the fighting and hopefully interesting for the general reader. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, looks good. I always find myself wondering how Robin and Blackburn must have felt out there alone around the Third Ridge, and what their horizon looked like at their defining moment. I came across the story on a plaque in a hallway what seems a lifetime ago when I was posted to a unit that was co-located with AUR and found it quite compelling. Must have been like being cast adrift and yet somehow they made it through. I always regret reading about Robin's fate; reminds me of so many others who were lucky, and then ran out of luck. Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Fascinating life story. Thanks for your work on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody scary I would reckon. No wonder they high-tailed it back to the rest of the battalion. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • As I can tell it has almost 4 million people and I watched some YouTube videos with non-Australians who talk about Melbourne.
  • Oh never mind that.

Part 2

  • May I ask you why not?
  • May I ask you why not?
  • "Undercover" has a different meaning from "under cover". "Undercover" means "secret work within a community or organization", "under cover" means being under the cover of something, hiding behind a physical feature or moving under covering fire, for example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, CPA-5! Just a couple I'm not sure about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Abstain Support from Harrias

edit
  • "..and along with the rest of the 10th Battalion, landed at Anzac Cove.." No need for the comma after Battalion.
  • "During his term as his articled clerk, on one occasion Hardy was being assaulted by two men.." I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it, as the repetition of "his" caught me out. I can't think of an ideal solution, my own preference introduces more repetition: "During his term as Hardy's articled clerk, Hardy was assaulted by two men.." I don't know.
    These two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1911, compulsory military training had been introduced, and Arthur had joined the.." No need for "had".
    I think it is needed, as we are talking about the past, given the narrative has already got to 1913. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..at Morphettville, South Australia, before embarking on the SS Ascanius at Outer Harbor.." I wonder if it is worth mentioning that Morphettville and Outer Harbor are both in and around Adelaide, something that isn't clear from the text at the moment?
  • "By mid-September, the 10th Battalion had suffered a total of 711 casualties, 150 of whom had been killed." and then two sentences later: "The battalion lost 207 dead during the campaign." I don't think the repetition is needed so close together; maybe remove the first instance and add to the second: "The 10th Battalion suffered over 700 casualties during the campaign, 207 of whom had been killed"?
  • "The 10th Battalion was committed to.." and two sentences later "In the early hours of 23 July, the 10th Battalion was committed to.." Avoid the repetition.
  • "..which they were able to break down, and using bombs, they were able to push the Germans back." Repetition of "were able to"; possibly swap the second to "they pushed the Germans back." Or similar.
  • "Motorised infantry units, the machine gun battalions were equipped with.." I'm afraid I'm a bit lost with this sentence? Should it start with "As"?
    Done down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..with Blackburn invariably marching.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
  • "..with Blackburn driving.." And again.
  • "It took up positions.." "It" singular and "positions" plural jar to me, though I can understand why. Maybe "The force took up positions..", or just "It took up position.."?
  • "..a battalion of British infantry arrived and, under covering fire from the machine-gunners attacked and captured.." Needs another comma after "machine-gunners".
  • "..with the 25-pounders knocking out.." Noun plus-ing again.
  • "Meantime, the.." Hmm, I thought this should be "Meanwhile.." or "In the meantime.." but Google suggest they can be used interchangeably, so no matter. It sounds odd to me, though. (No change required, apparently!)
  • "..with Blackburn's machine-gunners supporting.. Noun plus-ing again.
  • Is there a more commonly understood word that can be used in place of "internecine"?

Reviewed to the end of the Syria-Lebanon Campaign section, and I'm going to have to take a break, and come back to this later. Harrias talk 13:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias. Done down to here. Here are my edits so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
  • "Also on the Orcades were the 2/2nd Pioneer Battalion, engineers of the 2/6th Field Company, elements of the 2/2nd Anti-Aircraft Regiment and 2/1st Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, the 105th General Transport Company, 2/2nd Casualty Clearing Station, and sundry others. The ship, rated for 2,000 passengers, was loaded with 3,400." This is a long article, and there are a few places, such as this, when I feel the article goes into excessive detail. There were a few instances earlier in the article too, when stopovers on journeys are mentioned and things like that. I would suggest having a scan through the whole article and asking yourself whether each fact adds to the readers understanding of Blackburn. Of course, sometimes the minutiae helps to provide context, but at points this article gets distracted from Blackburn to go into detail about a slightly tertiary subject.
    This becomes important when they get to Java, as they are not infantry, but are required to fight as such. I will go through and check if there are any things that could be trimmed, though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, it would seem more appropriate to highlight it at that point, rather than this one. Even so, to a layperson, they aren't going to pick up on the fact that none of these are infantry. Harrias talk 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..as senior officer on board, was appointed as the officer commanding.." The repetition of "officer" seems avoidable.
  • "..were kept busy with physical training, air raid and lifeboat drills and lectures." To avoid the "and xx and yy", maybe swap this around to "..were kept busy with air raid and lifeboat drills, physical training and lectures."
    Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..did not even have any.." Remove "even".
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In disgraceful scenes, Australian looters and deserters.." Remove "In disgraceful scenes", not encyclopaedic language.
    Quite. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..into a killing ground and annihilated them." I'm not sure "annihilated" is encyclopaedic language here.
    OK. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and sought medical advice on the idea of continuing resistance in the hills." Why medical advice?
    They were worried about how long they'd last with tropical and other diseases etc. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..only weighed 88 pounds (40 kg)." Could you make this consistent with previous weights, which are in the format "x stone y pounds (aa kg; bb lb)"
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's me done. I will be going away tomorrow for the weekend, so I may well be slow to reply to any further comments; I would hope to do so on Sunday if I don't manage to get to them before that. Harrias talk 08:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thorough and perceptive review, Harrias. I will also go through and see what can be trimmed, although I am a bit of an inclusionist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. A few examples of things that could be trimmed out or at least mentioned in less detail:
  • "Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo in Ceylon, the ship arrived at Alexandria, Egypt, on 6 December, and the troops disembarked. They then boarded trains for Cairo where they made camp at Mena near the Great Pyramid of Giza on the following day, along with the rest of the AIF.[9] They remained at Mena undergoing training until 28 February 1915, when they entrained for Alexandria. They embarked on the SS Ionian on 1 March, and a few days later arrived at the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos in the northeastern Aegean Sea, where they remained aboard for the next seven weeks." I appreciate the value of "setting the scene" for the reader to give greater understanding, but an explanation that it was a drawn out journey by various modes of transport could be put more succinctly.
  • "On 10 February, the ship departed Columbo, escorted by the British heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire, which was soon replaced by the Australian light cruiser HMAS Hobart." Which ships provided the escort is superfluous to an understanding of Blackburn.
  • "The Orcades was escorted across the Sunda Strait to Java by the British destroyers Encounter and Tenedos." And again. Harrias talk 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the A-class criteria says "..and does not go into unnecessary detail.", not "..and does not go into unnecessary detail, except to link to other articles the author is interested in." Harrias talk 06:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not articles I am interested in, so your thesis fails. And I don't consider them unnecessary detail, and no doubt opinions will be divided on that score. They are just links to other articles that may be of interest to readers or other editors who might then add the information to the target article, which is how a wiki works. The fact that they may be of no interest to you is immaterial. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that they were not of interest to me, I said that they are superfluous to an understanding of Blackburn, and therefore unnecessary detail. Blackburn was on the Orcades, and a link to that ship is clearly warranted. The ships were providing an escort to the Orcades, and absolutely should be included and linked in the article about the Orcades. The interlinking effect of the wiki still occurs, but without every article needing to go into too much detail to wedge in links to other articles. Harrias talk 06:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing co-ordinator: while I can not give my support to this nomination due to my concerns about it going into excessive detail, I am nowhere near directly opposing its promotion. This is a very well-written article which clearly meets four of the five criteria, and probably four-fifths of the remaining point. Harrias talk 07:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Harrias, following additional feedback from another reviewer, they and I have done some trimming of detail, some of which you had identified. Here are those edits. Let me know if you consider there is additional material that could be removed so it can meet the criteria? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I've been away with the family over the weekend, but I've seen this, and will take a look over it properly as soon as I can. Harrias talk 07:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work on this. There is probably more that I would look to trim out, but that is personal preference from this point. I am happy that in this form the article meets the criteria. Harrias talk 10:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harrias. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - images are appropriately licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Given the lack of additional interest and the length of time this has been in the pool, I am interested in the views of @AustralianRupert and CPA-5: regarding the "excessive detail" identified by Harrias, and which seems to be the reason Harrias is withholding support. Can either or both of you advise on your views regarding the specifics? If the consensus is that I have overstepped the mark regarding detail, I am happy to step it back if that is what is needed for promotion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, unfortunately I often have trouble seeing if there is too much detail in these sorts of articles as the topic is of interest to me. That said, at 9,300-odd words of readable prose potentially the level of detail may scare readers/reviewers away from this article. Part of the issue, potentially, is the level of coverage that the subject has achieved in multiple sources. The most recent work, I believe is quite detailed. Anyway, I did a little copy editing to see if I could tighten some areas a little, and I took a look at a couple of sentences to see if maybe they could be reduced without impacting understanding. I have some suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackburn was one of the battalion scouts, and one of the first ashore, landing from Prince of Wales --> probably don't need to mention the ship here, as it is already clear from earlier in the paragraph;
  • On 10 February, the ship departed Colombo, escorted by the British heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire, which was soon replaced by the Australian light cruiser HMAS Hobart. --> potentially, this could be reduced to "On 10 February, the ship departed Columbo, escorted by British, and later, Australian warships". It probably doesn't lose too much in doing this, from the perspective of a biography;
  • five Japanese light tanks of the 2nd Reconnaissance Tank Regiment arrived at the destroyed bridge and were promptly engaged by the pioneers using Boys anti-tank rifles --> potentially, it probably isn't necessary in this biography to identify the unit, or the weapons involved. It would be excellent detail for the article on the battle, though;
  • Organised as motorised infantry, the machine gun battalions were equipped with wheeled motor vehicles, motorcycles and sometimes tracked carriers,[82] and were formed to provide a greater level of fire support than that which was organically available within ordinary infantry battalions. --> This sentence potentially isn't necessary for a biography. It is good detail to include in the article about the unit, though;
  • About the time that Blackburn had been appointed to command Blackforce, he had received a staff paper on Japanese tactics written by two senior Australian officers, Major General Arthur "Tubby" Allen and Brigadier Frank Berryman, based on the debrief of a British officer who had escaped from Singapore. The paper concluded that static defence was futile against the Japanese, and mobility was crucial to success in fighting them. Blackburn immediately adopted mobility, counter-flanking movements and defence-in-depth as his maxims for Blackforce --> Potentially this could be reduced to "Based on lessons learnt from the fighting in Singapore that highlighted the futility of static defence, Blackburn adopted mobility, counter-flanking movements and defence-in-depth as his maxims for Blackforce".
  • Thanks for your light c/e and suggestions, AR. As much as it pains me, I have trimmed as you've suggested. It is now almost exactly the same size as Raymond Leane which is Featured. You are right that Faulkner's comprehensive biography has added considerable weight to this article, but Blackburn's long military career across two wars along with his civilian career have naturally meant this is larger than most other VC bios. Thanks for taking another look, and for your suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 2 November 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/Arthur_Blackburn&oldid=924536760"