Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Australian Defence Force/Archive 1

Australian Defence Force
I've been working on this article for some time with an eye to bringing it up to A-class and then FA status. Before embarking on the 'big push' to raise all aspects of the article to A-class I'd appreciate some feedback on the current structure and content and suggestions for improvements. The article's main shortcomings at present are that the history section may be too short, the references and notes aren't consistently formatted and I'm not sure whether there's always enough context for non-Australians. --Nick Dowling 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Not bad at all. Some things to look at: The context seems sufficient, for me, as does the lenght of the history section; the bulk of the material there predates the ADF, so one wouldn't expect very thorough coverage of it here. Kirill Lokshin 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead section should really be longer, given the amount of material in the article.
 * There are a number of very short sections (e.g. "Personnel in each service", "Ranks and insignia", "Defence expenditure", etc.) that may be better off absorbed into the neighboring prose.
 * "Current operations" might be combined into the history section, to avoid a break in the narrative.
 * The "See also" section should be eliminated.

Buckshot06
I'll probably be making a number of small notes on the article over a few days. For a start, what about the history of the Australian military 1901-1976? Since Military of Australia is now a redirect to ADF, it creates a gap.... Buckshot06 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are you suggesting adding a section which traces the structure of the Australian military between 1901 and 1976? Military history of Australia does an OK job of tracing what the military did during this period. --Nick Dowling 09:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its listed as a main article in the text, so that answers my question. Also in line with Kirill, no FAs have see also sections. Buckshot06 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ian Rose
I might find a few little things on further perusal but reading top to bottom I didn't notice any real probs. Damn good effort, well written/organised/referenced and right sort of depth. Its legal status and relationship with MOD and ADO is particularly useful and succinct.

The recent edit to the intro is definitely an improvement, although I have a niggling doubt about the brevity of the very first line - just can't think of a specific improvement at this moment.

Regarding others' comments, I'm not too fussed about the smaller sections; in fact I don't think it would do any harm to make subsections for Army, Navy and Air Force under Current Equipment and Bases, since each seems to have its own paragraph anyway - but again, no big deal either way for me.

Overall, well done! I don't see why this shouldn't make it to FA at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)