Wikipedia:Peer review/Australian Army during World War I/archive1

Australian Army during World War I
I've listed this article for peer review IOT gauge its readiness for a GA Review by checking it for completeness and for any glaring errors, or assumptions of the reader, that are not apparent to the writer. The article is an attempt to create an over-archiving treatment of the subject to link articles on the various components of the Australian Army during this period, including the First Australian Imperial Force, the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force and the Citizen Forces, as well as the campaigns in which the force participated. However, as the the First AIF was the main expeditionary force sent overseas by Australia during the war this article by necessity focuses on it to an extent (but I've attempted to avoid repeating everything from the First AIF article here). It uses a structure which was successfully used for a related article - Australian Army during World War II (which is currently A class).

Thanks, Anotherclown (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert: Great work with this, I have some minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * in the lead "A process of demobilisation began with the last Australian personnel being repatriated in late 1919..." When did the process begin?
 * I was trying to get away with the implication that it began after the war ended rather than stating when for the sack of brevity but can see what you mean. I've added something there now. Does that work? Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * inconsistent: in the first paragraph of the background section you have "Citizens Military Force" and then in the next paragraph "Citizens Forces". Unfortunately, the sources do seem to use interchangeable names for this branch, but we should try to be consistent in each article;
 * Agreed this is an issue. I'm just a bit too crook at the moment to get my head around a solution. I'll keep this on the "to do list". Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, my advice would be to go with Citizens Force, but that's just an opinion. Any would be fine, most likely, so long as you are consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed this now, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * link Major General on first instance; ✅
 * is there a link that you could provide for "submarine mining" - it's a slightly confusing term, which some readers may not understand;
 * Military engineers using naval mines which were remotely detonated by electric cables from shore posns to defend ports (Melbourne and Sydney had detachments from the late 1880s to approx. the 1920s I believe). The only link I could find was Naval mine but it doesn't completely explain it. There is an interesting description at the Sydney Harbour defences of the facility at Chowder Bay. Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I came across the concept when I was working on the Colonial forces of Australia article. Fascinating. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * provide a link for the lower cased "militia" so that the reader understands the difference; ✅
 * you could link "universal national service" with Conscription in Australia and then delete the later link (or change it to a more generic link for conscription) ✅
 * "known as the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) to..." (probably needs a second comma after the "(AN&MEF)" ✅
 * in the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force section, I think the piped link to the United Kingdom should be removed (Britain is mentioned earlier, so it could be linked earlier if necessary); ✅
 * "Another battalion of Militia from the..." (inconsistency of capitalization; earlier you use lower case "militia"). The Militia (upper case) did not form until 1929–30; ✅
 * "focused upon the part-time Militia" (same as above) ✅
 * "Each division comprised three mounted light horse brigades..." --> "Each division consisted of three mounted light horse brigades..." ✅
 * "Australia, along with South Africa, was one of only two belligerents on..." --> "Australia and South Africa were the only belligerents on..."
 * I guess my focus here is on Australia so I think we need some way of distinguishing it in the sentence (which the suggested wording doesn't achieve I think). That said I agree the current wording is clumsy and could be improved. What would you think about "Australia was one of only two belligerents on either side not to introduce conscription during the war, along with South Africa."?
 * Yes, I think that could work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * " In Australia, two plebiscites on using conscription..." remove the link to "Australian Conscription" as it is a redirect and a duplicate. If possible you might link: Australian plebiscite, 1916 and Australian plebiscite, 1917 ✅
 * "some basic military instruction as part of Australia's compulsory training scheme..." the link here should be moved earlier in the text; ✅
 * stopped just at the end of the First AIF section; I will come back later. Just need to go for a run, and have some lunch etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments so far. I'm going to take a break for a while myself. Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the second sentence of the Occupation of German New Guinea section seems a little awkward. It might be smoother if you started it with "The Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF), a 2000-man..." ✅
 * "The objectives of the force were the wireless stations at Yap in the Caroline Islands, Nauru, and at Rabaul in German New Guinea..." --> The objectives of the force were the wireless stations on Nauru, and those at Yap in the Caroline Islands and Rabaul in German New Guinea..." ✅
 * "The force reached Rabaul on 11 September ..." when had it left?
 * Gday. They departed Sydney on 19 August, this is mentioned in the AN&MEF section (not the Occupation of German New Guinea section). Hopefully this isn't too disconnected. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * " Although they were originally bound for England to undergo further training prior to employment on the Western Front, the Australians were subsequently sent to British-controlled Egypt in order to pre-empt any Turkish attack against the strategically important Suez Canal, and with a view to opening another front against the Central Powers." (I thought the main reason for going to Egypt was the lack of accommodation and equipment in England.
 * Definitely a valid point. There actually seems to be sources for both (although I'd say the two explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive). I might have to think about this one (this might require changes to a few articles which cover this topic). Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "initial, unsuccessful attempt was made to capture Gaza on 26 March 1917, while a second and equally unsuccessful attempt was launched on 19 April. A third assault..." perhaps try to link to the articles on the battles here... ✅
 * inconsistent presentation: "ANZAC Mounted Division" and "Anzac Mounted Division" ✅
 * "Light horsemen also carried bayonets (as they were considered mounted infantry)..." this might need to be adjusted slightly based on Hawkeye's comments on the 12 LHR A-class review;
 * Ack. I've qualified the language here a little. Do you think that's sufficient? My very simplistic reading of Bou's argument is 1914-17 they were more mounted infantry / rifles, from 1917 onwards they became more like cavalry (although obviously the lines were blurred). I guess I'm trying to be brief and not go too far down that rabbit warren though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, that's it from me. Great work and good luck taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I've gone through most of these now and will come back to the other points (hopefully tomorrow). Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate, good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One other thing I notice, is that the Wilcox chapter of 1918: Defining Victory probably needs page numbers for consistency (e.g. see how you present the Pedersen 1988 work). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday - well picked up, however, on closer inspection of the source each chapter seems to be individually numbered i.e. starts at page 1 again. As such I used the PDF page numbers. Hopefully that works. Anotherclown (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I did some copyediting; feel free to revert. "the national mythology" is perfectly clear to me but won't be to a lot of readers, because the more common meaning of "mythology" is a collection of stories used to explain life, death, and world. It's fine to use the word, but it would be better to explain what you mean by it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it over and for taking the time to fix some of my more heinous prose! Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it, as long as we're clear that there's nothing heinous about your prose. - Dank (push to talk) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW fair point about the "mythology" part in the lead, it was lacking detail. In the end I decided just to remove it altogether as it is mentioned in the text and is given due prominence in another article (i.e. First Australian Imperial Force). Anotherclown (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)