Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military history of Australia during World War I/Archive1

Military history of Australia during World War I
Requesting peer review as this article recently passed a B class review and I am hoping to try to take it to a GA or even an A class. Any comments and assistance welcomed. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
A nice article, overall; a few comments, in no particular order:


 * The use of pull-out templates (e.g. main) seems inconsistent across sections; some sections (e.g. "Third Battle of Ypres") are missing what ought to be fairly natural topic links. I think that details is neater than main, incidentally, but that's a subjective matter.
 * The "Statistics" section looks a bit too short to stand on its own, particularly as it's mostly a table; is there any good way of integrating the material elsewhere?
 * The three navigation templates near the bottom of the article should be contiguous.
 * ✅ Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would try to get rid of the "See also" section by working those links into the article text; some of them might be well-placed in the introduction, or on navigation templates.
 * I've removed two of the See also links. I'm not sure whether to delete the remaining link to the official histories written by Charles Bean, or to incorporate it into the section on the War Memorial.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The listing of component units is given as a table in "First Australian Imperial Force", but as a bulleted list in "Australian Flying Corps"; the formats should probably be consistent.
 * I've converted the AFC units into a table format now. Good suggestion, thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mm40
Comments
 * Reference 111 is dead, I think it is because there is an extra period in the URL, but I'm not sure.
 * There is the issue of whether the publisher is anzac.day or anzac day. According to the website, it seems it should be "anzacday" because that's what's written on the top of the anzac pages.
 * Is "Jordan valley" (by reference 51) capitalized?
 * It seems that the link "Sarı Bayır" should be corrected, but since I don't know anything about, I'll leave it to you. Mm40 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I think I've fixed all of those now. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI,"Jordan valley" is how it is in the reference. I actually double-checked that before I added it since it didn't look right to me. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D
Congratulations on expanding this article - it's now very comprehensive and well cited. My comments are as follows:
 * The length of some of the article's sections seems a bit unpredictable - the section on the Western Front is relatively small given that it was the main theatre of combat for Australia during the war and the sections on the occupation of New Guinea and Australian Flying Corps are much too detailed in comparison (particularly the New Guinea section as this was a relatively minor episode and the section on the tiny Mesopotamian Half Flight, which was platoon-sized!). The coverage of the Navy seems appropriate and it may make a good model for the other sections.
 * The table with Australian Military Units of the AIF could be replaced with prose
 * ...doh! I just made another table (as per above)... — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The section on Galipoli needs work - it's unduly focused on the first day of the campaign and the evacuation and the list of battles should be converted into prose
 * The section which states that "the AIF underwent a major expansion" after Galipoli should explain what this involved
 * added a brief explanation, not sure if this covers it now. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be mentioned that battalions who were withdrawn from Gallipoli were split in half to form the basis of the new battalions (i.e. half veteran, half reinforcements). Of course, it will need to be sourced and worded better! Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit: See "Volume III: The AIF in France", Chapter 2. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The 'Egypt and Palestine' section would benefit from sub-headings
 * Done. I'm not entirely happy with my headings, though, could you maybe take a look and see if you can think of better ones? — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Western Front section is perhaps unduly focused on the major battles the AIF participated in - I'm not sure how to write this, but the routine rotations to and from the front line outside of the major battles should be discussed, if only briefly
 * Added brief mention. I see your point as the article does gloss over that subject. I will have to think about how it might be discussed more evenly. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The AIF's very heavy losses during 1918 and weak state at the end of the war should be mentioned. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another brief mention in the Hundred Days Offensive, as well as in the Conscription area. Do you think this is sufficient now, or does it still need work? — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)