Talk:Australian Army during World War II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm excited to see an article as intricate as this one at such a good level of quality. I'll be reviewing it. —Ed!^(talk) 17:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

" The strategy met significant political opposition from sections of the regular Army..." -- Any politicians in particular?
- Clarified this. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" He contended that Singapore was vulnerable,..." -- He who? No one has been named at this point in the section.
- Wynter - fixed now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation

"Raising the Second Australian Imperial Force" glosses briefly over how units were organized. Is there anything about company structure? By this I mean how many men to a company? How many platoons and what role of each platoon? How large a headquarters element? Could be a footnote since some of this might belong on the Company (military) and Battalion pages.
Also, some information about what differentiates an armored division from an infantry division in terms of organization. Once again could be a footnote.
How many men to a division? In my writing about military units I've some attention focused on how U.S. Army forces in WWII were organized with lots of non-divisional Corps support units so they could be attached and detached easily, as opposed to Nazi German structure focusing more heavily on the divisions themselves.
- Added a bit on the three points above. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would have sort of expected this section to link to an OrBat of the Army in the war. That information would certainly be available.
- Good idea - I've added a redlink. Will have to add the ORBAT to my to do list. Anotherclown (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to logistics and imagined it would also merit a mention somewhere.
- Logistics is covered in the fourth paragraph of "Forces in Australia and the Pacific". Is more required on this? Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Women's services" section: "While General Blamey sought..." I don't see him having been linked or introduced before this.
- Fixed. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, only about 400 of the 24,000 women who joined the AWAS served outside Australia." If there were any casualty numbers for AWAS I think they should be mentioned here.
- The limited number that served overseas primarily served late in the war in HQ First Australian Army in Lae, although some were stationed in Hollandia. I not aware of them having suffered casualties but will keep looking. Nothing mention in Palazzo, Johnston or Long that I can see. Will keep looking. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the time the AWAS women were deployed outside Australia the areas they were sent were entirely secure, so there would have been no combat casualties. I'll check to see if there are any figures available for non-combat casualties (eg, disease and accidents). Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue at "campaigns" in shortly

G'day Ed. Apologies for making a large edit in the middle of a review but I've now added a paragraph on command and administrative arrangements. This should have been included prior to the proceeding to GA but seems to have been a blindspot of mine. I hope this doesn't stuff you around too much. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! It looks good to me. —Ed!^(talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operations

"During the first years of World War II, Australia's military strategy was closely aligned with that of the United Kingdom. " -- You should note what the UK strategy was at this time.
- Now added imperial defence policy which is explained in more detail in the Singapore strategy article. Is this sufficient? Anotherclown (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
..." relatively few Australian military units were stationed in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region after 1940." -- Was this a politically controversial decision?
"The Australian military's role in the South-West Pacific decreased during 1944." -- This graph discusses the late-war drawdown, it might be helpful to note the number of US and UK forces that had been pumped into the Pacific War at this time.
- Clarified, but I don't think UK ground forces were sent to SWPA in any great numbers, elsewhere yes (SEAC for example), but not SWPA. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Critics of these campaigns argue..." -- Avoid the "C" word without noting specifically who was critical of the decision
- Mentioned one of the critics. Do you think this sufficient? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post War: " it would have participated in the invasion of the Japanese home island of Honshū which was scheduled for March 1946." -- You should link to the appropriate article here, I believe it's Operation Coronet but I don't have the sources.
- Yep Coronet - Horner 1982, p. 416. Add now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership

As with before, I would imagine a "List of Australian Army Generals article" could be created and top this section, or something of that nature.
- Added something now - although its a fairly unrefined list in many regards. Is this what you were after? Anotherclown (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

There are 15 or so Dup links to fix, I won't list all here but they'll need to be fixed.
- Fixed now, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One dab link as well.
- Got it now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with external links. All images have appropriate source and lisencing information. I see no apparent problems with either neutrality or stability.

Placing the article on hold pending these few improvements. —Ed!^(talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work all of you. Passing article for GA. —Ed!^(talk) 12:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the excellent comments, Ed, and taking the time to review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gday Ed. Thanks for taking to time to read through this and complete the review. Much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]