Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/15th Battalion (Australia)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

15th Battalion (Australia)

 * Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

The 15th Battalion was a Queensland/Tasmanian infantry battalion that fought during the First and Second World Wars. The article is currently a GA and I would like to take it a bit further with your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I reviewed for GA and have checked the recent changes and am satisfied it meets the ACR criteria too.
 * No dab links (no action req'd).
 * External links all check out (no action req'd).
 * All images have Alt Text (no action req'd).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Images all appear to be PD and seem appropriate to the article (no action req'd).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd). Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I added some missing bibliographic details from Worldcat for the Richardson ref, and made a couple of minor presentation tweaks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments This is a very strong article, and I hope that it's heading to a FAC. I have the following comments and suggestions: Support My comments are now all addressed. I'll add some extra material later this week. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I really like the lead photo being of veterans, but is it appropriate to call them "Retired members" of the unit? These men were largely citizen soldiers, with most only joining up for the duration of the world wars so they probably didn't consider themselves to have "retired" from the Army.
 * Good point. Changed to "15th Battalion veterans". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The majority of the 15th Battalion's recruits had no previous military experience" - is this correct? Modern scholarship on the AIF often notes that many of its members had been conscripted into part-time training in one of the various schemes implemented before the war.
 * Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Upon arrival, the battalion was reorganised from eight companies into four" - did this involve posting men out of the unit, or were small companies merged into larger ones?
 * Good point. The 100 odd strong companies became 200 odd strong. I have reworded this. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "As poor decision making stalled the advance inland" - this might be a bit simplistic: Turkish resistance and the general chaos at all levels of the Australian force contributed to this
 * Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Russel's Top" should be "Russell's Top". I'd also suggest linking the main positions, as they're notable.
 * Fixed typo and added a link to Quinn's Post; I wasn't able to find any other links, though, except "Pope's Hill" but that doesn't relate to Gallipoli. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any figures for the number of soldiers who had to be evacuated from Gallipoli due to sickness or wounds, or point-in-time figures on the strength of the unit?
 * The War Diaries have some, but they are very hard to read due to being handwritten. The article currently mentions that by September the battalion was down to "11 officers and 136 other ranks", which shows a pretty high wastage, but I will have to see if Chataway has anything further for an earlier month. The book is currently in transit, though, but hopefully it will be here next week some time. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit more on this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "the 15th Battalion was committed to fighting for the first time" - needs an "in France" qualifier
 * Added "on the Western Front". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Assigned a support role, the 15th Battalion" - this sentence is a bit over-complex - I'd suggest splitting it into two
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "which had been merged into the Australian Corps" - given that the Australians always fought in their own corps (I and II ANZAC), I'd suggest tweaking this to avoid the suggestion that the divisions had been dispersed previously.
 * Simplified. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "peace penetrations" - should this be "peaceful penetrations"?
 * Yes, indeed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "That month, a number of American troops were assigned to the battalion" - this sentence is a bit fragmented. I'd suggest simplifying it or splitting it.
 * "form-up point" - should this be "forming-up point"? (I'm not sure which is correct)
 * Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "decimated" - use of this term in a non-literal senses always attracts complaints, so I'd suggest tweaking it to something else
 * Changed to "depleted". AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On what date in 1918 or 1919 was the battalion disbanded? You might also want to note that the men returned to Australia on an individual basis rather than as a formed unit. (edit - according to the battalion's war diary, it "ceased to be administered as such" on 27 March 1919 when it was reduced to a company)
 * Added. I believe that the company was amalgamated with others to form a brigade composite battalion, which would then have been disbanded probably a couple of months later, but the source doesn't say this explicitly unfortunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that was the standard way the AIF units were handled as the force disbanded. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "As a result, the 15th Battalion was re-raised" - also a few too many commas in this sentence, I think
 * Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "the Great Depression, which made it difficult for part-time soldiers to maintain their livelihoods while continuing their training commitments" - would it not have also encouraged recruitment by providing an accessible source of work and income for the unemployed? I thought that the issue was that the government cut back funding for the Militia during this period, though I could be totally mistaken.
 * Added a bit about funding being cut, but unfortunately I haven't come across anything that mentions militia service as being billed as income for the unemployed. Training was so limited by lack of funds, that it wouldn't have paid much anyway - six full days in camp and six days of parades throughout the year. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "As the remainder of the 5th Division was rested, the 15th Battalion was committed to pursuing the withdrawing Japanese" - do we know why the 15th was selected for this role? (presumably it was the least worn out of the division's battalions).
 * Yes, that's right. I've tried to clarify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As extra sources to consult if you're interested in taking this to FAC, I'd suggest consulting Karl James' recent book on Bougainville The Hard Slog (or the PhD thesis on which it's based, which is available here), Phillip Bradley's To Salamaua and Garth Pratten's book Australian Battalion Commanders in the Second World War (which has some gossip about a couple of the COs of the unit - I can add this if it would help). Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably won't take it to FAC as I have a lot going on at the moment in real life, but I will eventually look at those sources. Please feel free to add from Pratten's book if there is something you think important. Thanks for the review, I appreciate your comments. Please let me know if I've missed the point with any of your concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Support with rationales/caveats/suggestions: All up, nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Prose: I copyedited a fairly large chunk of the article pre-ACR (picking up where Dank left off) but I hope not so much that I can't be dispassionate when I say that I think it reads quite well.
 * Structure: I'd have thought an article of this length would justify at least a two-paragraph lead. On the other hand, what you have there does flow nicely so perhaps you could even leave that as is and add second and third paras summarising the formation's activities in each war (just a thought).
 * Coverage: Level of detail seems quite reasonable; obviously I'm not an expert on the content but if AC and Nick are satisfied with it that counts for quite a bit.
 * Referencing: Nothing leapt out at me as suspect in either the reliability or the formatting of the refs, though that doesn't mean that Nikki might not spot something... ;-)
 * Supporting materials: All images Australian PD; the first one might cause concern in some quarters given it's post-1945 but the PD status is clearly spelt out at the (government) source and I think we've established precedent for that being satisfactory, even to the deletion brigade... ;-) Re. the infobox, I think it's superfluous to link WWI/WWII when subordinate campaigns are linked, and I'd like to think we're getting out of the habit of putting little flags next to country names (which also don't really need to be linked).

Comments
 * I copyedited before the ACR, and got down to Inter-war years. Reading quickly, I don't see any problems in the rest of it. You may want to link "gazetted". - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.