Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/14th Battalion (Australia)


 * 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 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

2/14th Battalion (Australia)

 * Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

A primarily Victorian infantry battalion of the Second Australian Imperial Force, this unit formed part of the 21st Infantry Brigade, which was assigned to the 7th Division. After fighting in Syria against the Vichy French, the battalion returned to Australia and was later committed to the fighting on the Kokoda Track. There they were thrust into action at a critical point, and after the Japanese attack was exhausted, they took part in the fighting around the beachheads around Gona after the Allies pursued the withdrawing Japanese northwards. One of the 2/14th's members, Private Bruce Kingsbury, received the Victoria Cross for his actions around Isurava in late August 1942. Throughout 1943–45 the battalion saw further action against the Japanese during the advance through the Markham and Ramu Valleys and on Borneo. It was disbanded after the war. Thank you to everyone who stops by to review the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Middle East and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC. If you take the article there, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments: Support
 * Tool checks ok: no dabs, external links check out, no issues with ref consolidation, no repeat links, Earwig tool reports no issues with close paraphrasing etc (no action req'd).
 * Image review: all images appear to be PD / or free.
 * Do the AWM images need a PD US tag of some sort?
 * Captions look fine to me (no action req'd)
 * Minor repetitive wording here: "Soon after battalion headquarters was established, the battalion's first commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel William Cannon,[8] began choosing his officers, who then set about the task of forming their own companies and platoons, as the battalion structure..." (specifically over use of "battalion"). Perhaps consider something like: "Soon after battalion headquarters was established, the battalion's first commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel William Cannon,[8] began choosing his officers, who then set about the task of forming their own companies and platoons, as the unit structure..."
 * Perhaps add something on the make up of the specialist platoons?
 * Perhaps add unit casualty figures for each campaign per Johnston The Silent 7th.
 * Syria and Lebanon: 17 KIA, 4 DOW, 0 DOAS, 94 WIA, 11 POW - p. 248
 * Kokoda: 110 KIA, 2 DOW, 4 DOAS, 132 WIA, n/a POW - p. 249
 * Buna, Gona and Sanananda: 32 KIA, 11 DOW, 7 DOAS, 88 WIA, 0 POW - p. 249
 * New Guinea 1943-44: 7 KIA, 3 DOW, 4 DOAS, 25 WIA, 0 POW - p. 249
 * Borneo: 16 KIA, 5 DOW, 0 DOAS, 41 WIA, 0 POW - p. 250
 * Wikilink: Isurava,  Alola, Koitaki, Popondetta, Manggar
 * The start of the Gona section seems a bit abrupt as there doesn't seem to be an explanation of how the situation had gone from that at the end of the last section (the 25th Brigades arrival on the Kokoda Track to relieve the 21st Brigade just as they were preparing to make a final stand) to the Australians moving on the Japanese beachheads. What happened to allow this? You seem to explain it in the lead but not in the text (i.e. the Japanese being force to begin to withdraw back up the track after having reached the end of their supply line etc)
 * Repetitive phrasing here: "...battalion began the 32-kilometre (20 mi) march towards Gona and on 29 November the battalion..." ("the battalion x 2), perhaps reword one?
 * "Before being withdrawn back to Australia in March 1944..." this phrase seems a little out of place in this paragraph. It seems like it is also mentioned in the following section.
 * Johnston 2005 p. 248 gives slightly different overall casualty figures from those cited from the AWM and Russell. Specifically he give 182 KIA, 25 DOW, 15 DOAS, 378 WIA and 11 POW. Perhaps also include this in the note to acknowledge the differences b/n sources? Anotherclown (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, AC, thanks for taking the time to review this. I've added the US licences to the images on Commons and I think I've fixed the other issues you raise. These are my edits: . Please let me know if you think there is anything else that needs adjusting. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those changes look very good to me. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support All looks good to me. I made some minor changes. One thing you might consider is naming the actually Foreign Legion regiment it fought in Syria (6th Foreign Infantry Regiment), as it has an article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments

Up to your usual standard AustralianRupert, the only comments I would have to make are: Minor quibbles only, it looks in great shape regardless. Zawed (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The makeup of D Company personnel; you mention A through to C. I suspect it is not available otherwise I'm sure you would have included it but thought I would check anyway.
 * Actually, I had missed this. Added something now. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikilink Mildura, Bombay?
 * Rhoden is wikilinked in an image caption rather than on his first mention in the article body itself (the Lae and the Finisterres section). Not sure of the appropriate practice here.
 * I'm not sure either, to be honest, just added a link. The duplicate link checker tool doesn't seem to highlight it as overlink, so I assume it must be okay. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, I think I've gotten all of these. These are my edits: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.