Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Australian Army during World War II


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


 * Promoted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Australian Army during World War II

 * Nominator(s): Anotherclown; AustralianRupert; Nick-D and Hawkeye7

I am nominating this article for A-Class review as it has recently passed a GA review and I believe that with a few more sets of eyes, it will be up to A-class standard. The article was originally started by Nick a few years ago, but as a result of a recent collaborative effort between him, Anotherclown, Hawkeye and myself, it has been expanded considerably. Thanks to all in advance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I reviewed this article for GA with an ACR in mind. The only comment I have on the changes since then is the list of Australian Generals and Brigadiers is sort of unwieldy right now, it doesn't specify who was a flag officer in which era. Still that article isn't part of this one so there is no reason for me to withold support. — Ed! (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * How about an infobox? Size, notable commanders and actions (probably hard to do with WWII; maybe campaign?) would be nice for the reader.
 * Since this is the all-star editing team, do you all know if there's a GA/FA/A Unit in Conflict article I can compare this article to? I found Hispanic Americans in World War II but I don't think that's up to the current FA standards; it does have a hand-crafted infobox. Kirk (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gday Kirk, there are a couple of similar articles that I'm aware of:
 * British Army during World War I - currently an A class article
 * British Army during the Second World War - currently a B class
 * Indian Army during World War II - also a B.
 * All of them seem to a little different though in terms of style, layout and information included (and infobox use). Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Indian Army during World War I is GA & there's the 'during' vs 'in' so I'd suggest renaming the article. The Indian ones have the infobox type I thought you should add; the British ones have a timeline box which I thought would be nice to consider.
 * Also, Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War is another way to go (but increases your scope...). Kirk (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added an infobox like those in the Indian articles. I wouldn't be adverse to a name change to "Australian Army during World War II". What does everyone else think? AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously biased, but 'during' seems a bit detached. It's much of a muchness though, so either option works for me. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks AR - infobox looks good. Given the name adopted by the others it would seem consistent to move it to "Australian Army during World War II" so I'd be happy with this if there is a consensus. Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and done this now. Happy to revert if its an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

' Comments' overall a very well-written, comprehensive and well-researched article. Just a few nitpicks: Other than that, an amazing piece of work. Constantine  ✍  10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)  Comments  Support some small edits made and links added, this is in really good shape and I am leaning towards supporting it meeting the A-Class criteria some questions.
 * The article needs a few maps, at least one for the Pacific and one for the Mediterranean theatre.
 * In the Campaigns/North Africa section: "During the first years of World War II, Australia's military strategy was closely aligned with that of the United Kingdom's imperial defence policy, of which the Singapore strategy was a key component." How exactly does the Singapore strategy tie in with North Africa?
 * I've tweaked this; does this make the link clearer? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * " in the deserts of the Mediterranean, Middle East and North Africa "found both in the lede and the "background" section. I suggest removing the "deserts" part. I know the popular image of the "desert rat", but neither Greece nor Lebanon have deserts.
 * Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MacArthur is first mentioned in the Papuan campaign section ("Due to a lack of supporting weapons and MacArthur and Blamey's insistence") but not introduced until the Leadershop section ("From April 1942 General Douglas McArthur took over command of all US and Australian forces in the newly formed South West Pacific Area"). I think this should be changed, with MacArthur and his role introduced earlier.
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Although the Second AIF not disbanded on 30 June 1947" possibly "was not disbanded until 30 June 1947"?
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I've addressed some of your comments and will try to get to the others tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! On the Pacific map, perhaps this file would be better as it includes Australia and its territorial divisions and cities. I would still like to see a map for the Middle Eastern theatre, but I can safely switch to Support even so. Constantine  ✍  23:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a map for the Med, North African and Middle East part. Does this work? Anotherclown (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I think the other file that Constantine mentions could work for the Pacific, what does everyone else think? AustralianRupert (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The good thing about the current map is that it includes the SWPA boundaries which is discussed in the article so it might be useful to keep it. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Med map is not the best, but I have not seen anything better around, either. On the Pacific, speaking as a non-Aussie, it is of greater help to see where the cities, islands, provinces mentioned in the article are. It is rather obvious from the text which area the SWPA comprises, so IMO that is of secondary importance. Constantine  ✍  09:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked User:SpoolWhippets if he might be able to create a better quality version of the Med map. My concern with the Pacific map is that it shows a lot of planning detail that might owerawe the general reader. Of course, if others agree I've got no dramas changing it, though. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Raising the Second Australian Imperial Force section. as well as an anti-tank and an anti-aircraft regiment is that one regiment or two some British divisions had a joint A/T-A/A regiment.
 * G'day, I've tweaked this to clarify that they were separate units. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is armoured cavalry regiment correct for the time period, would it not  be tank or armoured regiment following British practice? Later in the article it does refer to three tank-equipped armoured regiments.
 * For whatever reason, the Australian Army referred to its divisional reconnaissance regiments (which were equipped with universal carriers and light tanks on the same pattern as the equivalent units in British infantry divisions) as divisional cavalry regiments. The 'armoured' at the front here makes it clear that there were no horses involved! Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked this wording to make it a bit clearer Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Defence of Australia section From 1944 the Australian military was mainly relegated to subsidiary roles is there any detail about how this received by the top brass and/or if it affected moral.
 * I've added a small bit on this. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Casualties section 121,800 wounded/injured in non-operational areas that a very large number compared to those wounded in action 21,853 is there any reason known for it?
 * Note on the ex links checker here FACT SHEET 61 ref 236 is shown as a dead link, but when clicking on it it actually works. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the source here, but I imagine that tropical diseases would have been a major part of the explanation. Thanks a lot for your comments Jim. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief clarification with a ref. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "with all unmarried men turning 21 being liable for three months training": Apart from the WP:PLUSING problem (not really a problem, more of a suggestion) ... my understanding of the word "liable" is that they owed it, that it was an obligation ... and I doubt that it was an obligation for the disabled, so maybe the word should be different, or there should be some qualification. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Liable" is the word the lawyers use; "obligation" is the word the soldiers use. We always speak of "training obligations". Yes, it did include the disabled; they still had to show up and be medically assessed. As in the Great War, the standards varied as the war went along. There was a whole class of men called B class, who were not rated fit for combat, but could be used in bases and non-operational roles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The disabled probably weren't obligated to do 3 months of training. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I just checked multiple secondary sources, which all stated that all men were liable for this service. However, that's obviously not right, and a wartime summary report on the 'Army War Effort' available through the National Archives of Australia explains that about a third of even the youngest class of men within this age group were granted exemptions on medical grounds or due to hardship. I've tweaked the article accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "while non-battle casualties were also significant and included 1,088 killed and 33,196 wounded or injured, and another 1,795 killed or died in accidents and 121,800 wounded or injured in non-operational areas.": I don't follow those categories.
 * Non-battle casualties are those not directly related to enemy action, such as accidents and diseases. Four general officers died, all non-battle: three in air crashes (White, Vasey and Downes) and one (Wynter) of natural causes, all in non-operational areas in Australia. Three brigadiers were killed in one campaign, all in operational areas in New Guinea; but one died in an aircraft accident (it didn't crash), one from typhus, and one from enemy action when they dropped a bomb on his headquarters. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Still don't follow how these are non-overlapping categories (all "non-battle"): "killed", "wounded or injured", "killed or died in accidents" (what's the difference?), and "wounded or injured in non-operational areas" - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just simplified the material in the lead - is it clearer now (and others; is this wording still correct?) Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking this will be heading to FAC soon-ish, and if so, I'd rather copyedit it now. Understood that this is a high-level article with many editors; also understood that a person who knows exactly what their own writing style is may not feel confident enough to make a change to someone else's writing style. Still ... there are some specific problems that seem to be coming up a lot that I'd like for you guys to work on before I come back to this: see "danglers", "conciseness" and "because" at WP:Checklist. If a sentence starts with "This", ask yourself if it's clear what "this" is, and if that sentence wouldn't make more sense combined with the previous one. There are too many words that don't have any meaning, that just serve as placeholders. See my edits so far (and for that matter, my edits to your other articles). - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is the work of multiple editors, and too my mind changes style from section to section, so I would not worry about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it headed to FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I'm not planning of nominating it. I will try to tighten some of it, but I find it difficult to copy edit my own work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this has FAC potential Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It feels FAC-worthy, though I don't know. Okay, after you guys have run through it, I'll fix stuff and talk about stuff I don't fix. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I see Kirk has some things for you guys to look at, but I'm going to withdraw my comment at WT:MHC and move on. I'm having some success talking with people about GLAM and copyediting projects, and I'm involved in several big RfCs. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments
 * I'm restarting down here - thanks for the infobox & renaming the article.
 * The casualty table looks incomplete as if someone is working on it; if not I think its obvious what's wrong w/the headings. I would also see if you can normalize the whitespace on the right and fix the citation.
 * G'day, I've reformatted it somewhat. I'm not sure how to fix the whitespace. Does anyone have any ideas? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me now, thanks AR. I just wonder about the non-operational areas part. All the casualties are in the War against Germany column. Is this right? I assume it shouldn't really be in either - maybe just keep in the total column? What does everyone else think? Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to find a way to merge the cells across both the wars (as they apply to both as you say), but couldn't figure out the mark up coding required. Putting it in the total column might be a good work around. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done this now. If others disagree pls revert. Anotherclown (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a really, really long article - is there a reason the lead has only 3 paragraphs?
 * What do you think is missing? The lead was much longer, but was trimmed down as it was rather daunting for readers. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wrote that unclearly. I was thinking reformatting the lead to have 5 or 6 paragraphs since its still kind of daunting; I'd probably leave it as is.
 * Gday again. According to WP:LEADLENGTH articles of this length should have 3 to 4 paras and no lead should be longer than 4. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole '...force was larger than Australia could sustain' is very confusing. I think this could be more clear defining what 'the Government' wanted the men to do instead of being in the army. Did something happen? etc.
 * Australia lacked the manpower and industrial base needed to sustain such a strength - I've added this to the lead, and it's noted and cited in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we have that book in the stacks I'll try to read it today - I wanted a sentence explaining what it means to sustain such a strength. Or maybe something interesting happened like they ran out of bullets because all the munitions workers were in the Army.
 * I've just expanded this; the issue was that the Army couldn't keep its units up to strength and the allocation of so many people to the military damaged the rest of the economy. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When you discuss the divisions the article uses types of units e.g. corps, support and service units, kinds of units e.g. company, platoon, section and 'branches' (i don't know the exact name) e.g. infantry, armor, ordnance, electrical and mechanical engineers, engineers, signals, medical services etc. I think it would be better if you listed all the branch options and which type of unit they fall under.
 * I'm not sure I really follow you here. Could you perhaps please give an example? Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, Kirk, to clarify are you asking for a break down of what branches were in what unit? For example, in an infantry battalion there were infantry corps personnel, transport, ordnance, signals; in an artillery regiment there were artillery corps, transport, ordnance, signals etc.? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is heavily sourced on Palazzo, which I can't get but maybe it has something to do with his writing style and too much paraphrasing? For example, In 1942 infantry, cavalry and armour totalled 137,236 men, while ordnance totalled just 29,079 men. - this is cited, but its confusing because you never defined/linked the reader the term 'ordnance' meant logistics/supply and told the reader if it was a support and/or service unit not a corps unit and why those types of units were out of proportion. Again, I'm surprised the source doesn't have a story about why the unit type ratio caused a problem which is why they were intent on fixing this. The 3rd paragraph uses the phrase "support and service units" as well as "service troops" while the 6th paragraph uses "support units". Is Artillery corps, service or support?  Kirk (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, I've reworded this and added links. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * is the Government correct? I don't know if you need to specify that as frequently or maybe you can mix it up so it doesn't repeat as often in paragraphs.
 * I've tweaked the wording here. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ..one of the largest Allied armies as a proportion of population at the end of the war. It is cited and in the lead but 'one of the largest' is very weasel wordy. Is that what the source says? Is this a source of national pride? Weren't there basically 4 Allied armies at the end of the War?
 * This is the wording used by the source (Johnston). Not sure how its a weasel word though - it is a "relative" statement which is qualified (as a proportion of population). It serves to illustrate how Australia "overmobilised". Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you could find out if the Army was #2 or #3 - I'm always surprised what historians get away with in their books. Kirk (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it would have been one of the largest 4 Allied armies in raw numbers (for instance the Russian, American, British and Chinese etc would likely all have been much larger - probably others too - Canadians?). As I said this is a relative figure as a percentage of population. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted a ordinal number ranking to replace 'one'; I thought maybe you could check another source? Kirk (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about the statement from Long (1963), p. 587 that the size of the Australian Army combat forces in action for "part of the last year of the war" was the largest as a share of the population of any of the Allied countries other than the USSR? (I presume that he's talking about the force at the end of the war, when the best part of 5 of the Army's 6 combat divisions were in action). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That kind of wording seems much more clear to me. Historians really have to slice and dice this fact - still curious why being #2 is a source of national pride but its not an A-review issue.
 * Why is Jungle divisions in quotes? Wasn't that the actual name?
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * naval squadron later Royal Australian Navy which is confusing since I assume the RAN had more than one squadron after World War I . Kirk (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording of this. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I may have more comments if this makes it to FAC, but I think its pretty good now. Thanks for all the improvements!Kirk (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


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