Talk:Military history of Australia during World War I/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

It looks pretty good, but I have a few concerns that I'd like to see addressed before this is promoted: {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #88aaff;" | All points addressed

Comments Congratulations on tackling such a broad topic. This will probably be more widely read than its sub articles, most of which are still starts anyhow. The article is very well written, so mostly what I have now is a list of omissions.
 * Hi, mate. Thanks for the review, but I'm not really sure I can fix many of these issues. I guess I was hasty in nominating this for a GA. I probably got carried away because of the effort it took to write. Anyway, most of the issues are beyond my expertise (html wise) or beyond my knowledge base. I was trying to write a broad history, but a lot of the points raised a very specific and of which I don't know enough to add to the article. Is anyone else who contributed able to help? If not I don't see much point in continuing with the review. Some of the topics I know nothing about. - AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang in there mate. I'll add the missing bits. I see another editor added a good bit on the Senussi. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Introduction:
 * "the nation pledged its support alongside other Commonwealth nations" Pledged its support to what? ✅
 * added 'to the Empire'. I actually think the sentence was clear to begin with, given that it mentions the war at the start of the sentence, but anyway sometimes I can't see the errors in my own work...


 * "Australia was one of the only participants in the war not to institute the scheme" Not so. Australia had conscription before the war, and throughout it. However, conscripts could not be sent overseas unless they volunteered. ✅
 * reworded - AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Introduction does not summarise the article very well.
 * Could you please elaborate? - AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The introduction has to be free-standing as the idea is to collect the introductions together into a work of their own. Now, most of the article is about operations, which makes sense as that was Australia's main effort. So I'd like the bit on the ground war expanded to be more of a summary of the article below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * German New Guinea:
 * This is good, but ends too abruptly. I'd like to see the last sentence replaced with a paragraph about the activities of the AN&MEF after 1914. ✅


 * First Australian Imperial Force
 * The table looks pretty ugly, and the information in it is presented more nicely in the ANZAC ribbon at the bottom of the page. Get rid of it and replace it with a paragraph on the expansion and organisation of the AIF. ✅
 * Removed as per suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Upon formation, the AIF consisted of only one division". No; the 1st Light Horse Brigade was not part of the 1st Division. ✅
 * I have reworded. - AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neville House was not in charge of the medical services in 1914. Colonel Charles Ryan was DDMS of the 1st Division; Surgeon General W. D. C. Williams was DMS of the AIF. (See Bean 1921, p. 78) ✅
 * Grey 2008, p. 88 says it was Howse. Which am I to believe?
 * Bean. Because he was there. I'll let Jeff know and the error can be corrected in the next edition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Howse was serving with the AN&MEF in German New Guinea during 1914. On his return, he was appointed Assistant Director of Medical Services to the 1st Division and was not DMS of the ANZAC force until mid-1915. Hope this helps. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Howse travelled to Egypt as a supernumerary medical officer. He replaced Ryan as ADMS on 28 December 1914. See Tyquin, Neville Howse, pp. 38-41. Or, better still, Butler, I:58. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gallipoli
 * "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC), comprising of the Australian 1st Division and the composite New Zealand and Australian Division (NZ&A), under the command of Lieutenant General William Birdwood." The text is ambiguous here. A reader might infer that Birdwood commanded the NZ&A Division. ✅
 * Outline of the Campaign: Replace the list of battles with a proper description of them. Just a sentence on each, worked into the text below
 * "The cove today is known as Anzac Cove." This should read "The cove today is known as Anzak Koyu (Anzac Cove)." Add a reference. ✅
 * Changed, but I don't have a reference for it. Once again the perils of working on wiki, other people put things in and don't cite, but I don't have the sources to fix it. I have added a citation needed tag, may be someone might fix it for me.


 * "After the war, the bad conditions and high casualties amongst the Anzac troops resulted a reasonably prevalent view in Australia that these had been due to the incompetence of British officers commanding the Australian troops and their disregard for the casualties that resulted from poorly planned or ill-conceived attacks" Actually, as a military historian who has examined this campaign in detail, I'd probably say "prevalently reasonable". No need to be so defensive.
 * You might be right, but I don't think that I can actually say that. My last GA review got done for weasel words when I wrote a phrase that I thought perfectly reasonable too, so I don't think that this should be changed.


 * Egypt and Palestine
 * You need to mention the fighting against the Senussi. ✅
 * I have added a section on this now. Hope it helps. Anotherclown (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You should also mention the Australian role in the Camel Corps.
 * And the 1st Light Car Patrol
 * Heliopolis is a disambiguous link


 * Western Front
 * "Of these actions, the last one, at Hamel on 3 July 1918, is perhaps the most notable." But probably not. The most notable has always been Second Villers Bretonneux, which gets a write up in the papers every year. (Being fought on Anzac Day is a plus.) Hamel is principally of interest to military historians.
 * "a series of minor raids against the German lines which have since come to be known as Peaceful Penetrations." can you elaborate on this? The word "raid" is very inappropriate here, as it conjures images of 1916 style trench raids.
 * From my understanding it was actually similar to said raids. Indeed, the wikipedia entry on it states that it was a cross between trench raiding and patrolling. I have added this to the section.


 * You should mention the first troops to arrive on the Western Front, the Volunteer Hospital and the motor transport.
 * You need to mention (either here or down below) the activities of the base troops at Le Havre; the railway companies; and the tunnellers
 * A paragraph is required on the base in the United Kingdom and AIF Headquarters in London.


 * AFC
 * Table yucky. Consider adding the flying squadrons to the Anzac Ribbon. ✅
 * Can someone help with this, I've got no idea how to do this? - AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The peer review suggested putting this into a table. Can I ask why the table is 'yucky'? For me it provides the information more clearly and concisely than putting it in to prose. Same with the AIF table. I may as well just delete the table and hyper link all the divisions as they are mentioned in the text, but then the article loses the thematic clarity that the table provides. Additionally, I would have to work into the text all the dates of raising and disbanding, which would make the whole thing a bit disjointed. - AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have now removed this table and have replaced it with one of those ribbon/template dealies at the bottom of the page. I somehow worked out how to do it. If someone could check the template though, that would be great, because I probably did something wrong with it (as I've never made one before)— AustralianRupert (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Other theatres
 * I'd like another section after the Western Front or AFC sections with a paragraph about the AIF in other theatres, ie Salonika, India and Persia.


 * Royal Australian Navy operations
 * Mention activity in the Black Sea and Adriatic
 * I believe that the Adriatic has been mentioned, does anyone know about Black Sea ops? - AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Will add it in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Describe the activities of the RAN Bridging Train. ✅


 * Home Front
 * I'd just like to say that I like this section a lot. Well done. ✅


 * Statistics
 * Could the numbers be right-justified ✅
 * Any chance of moving the box up the top, under the recruiting poster?
 * This is beyond my expertise. It just seems to sit on top of everything when I move it. Can anyone help with this? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "equalling one of the highest casualty rates per head of population of any British Empire army (65 per cent)" Actually, New Zealand had a higher per capita casualty rate, so delete "equalling". ✅
 * reworded. It should have been as percentage of forces that embarked. - AustralianRupert (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnotes
 * "The AIF raised for World War I service has subsequently been called the First AIF in order to distinguish it from the 2nd AIF which was raised during World War II." You wouldn't think such a common-sense statement could be wrong, but it is! For the First AIF was so called even as it was forming in 1914, the possibility of there one day being a second being acknowledged from the start. (Also: Use "Second AIF" to make it consistent with "First AIF".)
 * Do you have a source for this? The official history I believe only says AIF, not First AIF. For instance Scott 1941, p. 196 (Australia during the War, Volume XI of the official history). Also Grey's A Military History of Australia 2008 p. 85. - AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments I'm trying to work out how the campaign in Iraq translates into the campaign in Persia (i.e. Dunsterforce). It seems some stations of the signal squadron continued to fight in Persia while a separate force was raised from veterans on the Western Front to form Dunsterforce, but I'm not clear on this point.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other theatres
 * This is a good idea. At the moment, the section on the signallers in Mesopotamia/Iraq is with the AFC, where it obviously doesn't fit (I presume that the 1st Australian Wireless Signal Squadron is a "cavalry" squadron, not a "flying" squadron).
 * The 1st Australian Wireless Signal Squadron was a signals unit. They manned radios. For their activities, see Bean V:713-727 Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. Actually I started work on their article last weekend. Seems the radios were horse-driven, and all of their operators were trained horsemen (not to mention that they operated with the British cavalry columns. That's why I assumed that they were "cavalry" rather than part of the AFC, for example. Unfortunately, I'm still only on their contribution to Maude's advance on and capture of Baghdad. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Best of luck with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a good idea to mention India, or at the very least the Australian nurses! Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

}}