Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom

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 Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Featured article candidates/Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom/archive1

While the UK was the rear base for the Australian Imperial Force during the First World War, with no fewer than 50,000 Australians being in the country at all times from 1916 to 1919, the Australian Army presence in the UK was modest for most of the Second World War. There were two exceptions to this though: in 1940 8,000 Australians formed part of the forces deployed to counter the feared German invasion, and after the German collapse over 5000 released AIF prisoners of war passed through the UK. In addition, several engineer units undertook works in the UK between 1940 and 1943 and liaison officers were stationed there throughout the war. Following the war small numbers of the AIF formed part of a cricket team which played an almost test-level series, and around 160 took part in the 1946 London Victory Parade.

This article provides what might be the most comprehensive account of the AIF in the UK available online. It passed a GA nomination in December, and has been further expanded and copy edited. I'm hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria, and would also appreciate any comments regarding changes which might need to be made ahead of a FA nomination. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM I reviewed this article in detail at GAN, and have looked over the additions made in the last couple of weeks. I consider it meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, Nick, this article looks pretty good to me. I have the following review comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dab links, and the ext links all worked when I checked them (no action required)
all images have alt text (no action required)
all information appears to be cited to reliable sources
there are a couple of duplicate links: 2/9th Battalion (Australia), 2/10th Battalion (Australia), prisoners of war
- Including POW being linked twice in the same sentence! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"File:Victory Parade in London, England, UK, 8 June 1946 D27870.jpg": might be more visually appealing if the black bars/spots around the edges were cropped off
- I've cropped the one on the left, but removing the one on the right would remove a fair chunk of the photo (including the royal coat of arms), so I've left it. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried to remove the one on the right without removing the coat of arms, but if you don't like it, please feel free to revert. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Britain was the 'Mother Country'...": I think the MOS prefers double quote marks
- Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
slightly inconsistent hyphenation: "Major-General" but also "Lieutenant General"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
slightly inconsistent: "Australian Chiefs of Staff" v. "British chiefs of staff"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the Works consulted section, "High command : Australia and Allied Strategy, 1939-1945" --> "High Command: Australia and Allied Strategy, 1939–1945"
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, "mid 1943" --> "mid-1943"?
in the lead, "mid June" --> "mid-June"?
- Both fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, "would have counter-attacked any German amphibious or airborne landings in southern England", perhaps add "if they had taken place"?
- I think that the tense indicates that this didn't happen? Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it does. I just thought it might potentially be confused as future-in-the-present tense. No dramas, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, perhaps add "Once the threat of invasion had decreased" to the second paragraph
- Interestingly, none of the sources actually say that this was a reason the AIF was withdrawn from the UK. At the time the British expected to face a renewed threat of invasion during the summer of 1941. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, I'm sure I've read this somewhere, but can't recall where at the moment. I will send the request to my long term memory department...might get a response in a few weeks... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, "two brigades and supporting..." --> "two infantry brigades and supporting"?
- Yes, that helps. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Columbo" --> "Colombo"
- Oops! Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"two companies of engineers": suggest linking Royal Australian Engineers
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1944, 13 members of the AIF...": I wonder if some names should/could be worked in here as examples? A couple were relatively notable, for instance Ronald McNicoll, Bill Robertson and Jo Gullett.
- I'd prefer to leave this to the coverage in the Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy article which has a stronger focus on them, especially as these soldiers were mainly notable for their post-war careers rather than their status when they arrived in the UK in 1944. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
image licensing looks fine to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Looks good to me. Some comments:[reply]

"en-route" doesn't have a hyphen
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link Australian War Cabinet
Link Chief of the Australian General Staff
- Both linked Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Australian force arrived at Gourock in Scotland on 17 June" You should re-state that this is US 3 here, as you have been talking about the rest of the 6th Division
- Done Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we need to link "Australforce" though, as this is the article about it.
- I've been meaning to start an article on it, mainly to provide the order of battle. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The new infantry battalions were initially numbered the 2/28th, 2/28th and 2/30th Battalions" should be "2/28th, 2/29th and 2/30th Battalions"
- Oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2018 (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.