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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military history of Australia during World War I[edit]

I am nominating this article for peer review as it has been listed as the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight with a view to taking it to FA class by another user, although I am the main contributor (of course, however, there have been a number of other editors who have worked consistently on the article also and who have been invaluable in bringing it to where it is now). It is currently listed as a GA and has been previously been peer reviewed. Before taking the leap, I would like to see what the liability is before getting involved in an ACR or FAC, so am requesting opinions about what would be needed to get it to these levels. All comments welcome. Cheers. (Prior peer review here). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth[edit]

May add more comments later. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I will wait before I do anything too drastic about the section sizes as I want to get a number of opinions before forging ahead. Cheers, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth. IMO the command structure is probably too detailed for this article, but I would encourage you to add it to First Australian Imperial Force if you feel so inclined. Likewise I think listing all the memorials may be a bit much also. They could be included in the articles for the battles themselves though (if they haven't already been added). Lastly I think the relative importance of each topic/battle/service should determine the level of coverage, not an arbitrary allocation of equal space to all topics. In this regard I think the article probably strikes this balance. Anyway thats just my two cents, others may disagree of course. ChoraPete (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ChoraPete[edit]

Personally I think this article is quite good. Only a few minor points:

  • There are some very short paragraphs which should probably be linked with other sentences to form real paragraphs, or expanded on to achieve the same;
  • Maybe expand battle of Krithia and Turkish counter attack sections a little in the Gallipoli section
  • Maybe the section on Es Salt could be expanded (just a couple more sentences perhaps), likewise for the battles of Rafa and and of Romani in the Egypt and Palestine section;
  • The see also link to the article on the Australian official histories could be worked into the prose (IVO where you mention Bean probably) and then this could be eliminated and Done
  • Is there anyway of 'right-aligning' the table at the end to remove the whitespace?

Anyway that is all from me for now, if I think of anything else I will let you know. Good luck. ChoraPete (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the review. I will see what I can do to address these. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

This article is in excellent shape, and is probably nearly ready for an A class nomination. As an over-arching suggestion, I think that the article might be too detailed, and you should look to move some material into subsidiary articles. In particular, many relatively small actions of the first years of the war involving battalions and brigades are covered in what seems to be excessive detail compared to the succinct descriptions of the AIFs division and corps-level operations in France from 1916 onwards. My specific suggestions for improvements are:

  • Some maps would be useful if they're available
  • The single paragraph sections should be integrated into neighboring sections
  • The lead photo lacks visual impact - while its a featured picture, this seems to be due to the rarity of high resolution pictures of World War I rather than any implicit value (disclaimer: I voted against it during its FPC). I'd suggest that it be replaced with something which more strongly grabs readers' attention.
  • The first two paragraphs of the lead are a bit too detailed - this should be a high level summary of Australia's involvement in the war
  • The 'German New Guinea' section is too detailed and should be trimmed to about three or four paragraphs
  • I don't think that the first brigade commanders need to be named in the 'First Australian Imperial Force' section, particularly as this isn't carried through the remainder of the article
  • The expansion of the AIF is repeated at the end of the 'Evacuation' section and start of the 'Egypt and Palestine' section
  • Reference 73 ("The Turkish Rout at Romani — from a British illustrated magazine, published September 1916") seems like an odd choice given the availability of many post-war works. The claim that the Turks were seeking to destroy the Canal also is a bit surprising - was this even possible?
  • 'Imperial Mounted Division' shouldn't be in italics
  • The photo captioned simply 'Charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade' is potentially misleading given that there's been a long running (and as far as I know, unsettled) dispute over whether it is authentic.
  • There's a bit of over linking in the 'Fighting around Gaza, 1917' section - 'Australian Mounted Division' and 'Beersheba' are linked twice
  • The statement that "Five infantry divisions of the AIF saw action on the Western Front in France and Belgium, leaving Egypt in March 1916" is over-simplistic and not correct: this ignores the many corps level units and the 3rd Division was trained in England until December 1916
  • The paragraph on the 1st Division's mechanical transport probably belongs in the article on the division and isn't worth more than a passing mention in this article
  • The 'Royal Australian Navy operations' section repeats some of the content of the 'German New Guinea' section
  • The 'Internment, censorship and other special measures' and 'Economy' sections are probably too detailed for an article on the military history of Australia during the war, and could be split off to provide an excellent starting point for an article on the home front.
  • The simple table in the 'Statistics' section should be converted to prose
  • The entries in the 'Footnotes' section need citations. Footnotes d and f could be removed (the first isn't necessary and the second is one person's view of a hotly contested topic which largely falls outside the scope of this article) Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose[edit]

Concur with other reviewers that this is a very good article as is, and probably quite close to A-Class standard. I'll try and review in detail when I can, particularly the air corps section.

  • Just as an initial comment, I agree with Nick that the lead picture lacks impact. The first two iconic images that come to my mind—which surprisingly don't appear in the article anywhere else as yet—are File:1stAustralianDivisionHooge5October1917.jpeg and File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. The Nek painting and the photo of Beersheba are certainly iconic as well, but a bit specialised for the lead IMO. Any other suggestions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg would be a great choice, especially as it's also an FP. The Australian War Memorial's wonderful book Contact says that it "remains one of the most recognisible and widely reproduced images of this landscape, which has come to serve as an emblem of the Great War". Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both are excellent suggestions, leaning towards File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. ChoraPete (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool - of the two, Ypres would be my preference as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty happy with the AFC section. I'd consider mentioning a few more names in the text, however, in addition to Petre and McNamara, namely Richard Williams, Oswald Watt, and Harry Cobby:
    • Williams and Watt should logically appear after the line Thousands of aircrew from the other Dominions ... without gaining the benefits of command and the administrative experience which came with an independent air service, as they illustrate the contrasting situation for AFC men, namely that they both commanded wings (Williams temporarily leading the RAF's Palestinian Brigade as well). I can add the words and/or provide you a ref, if you like.
    • Cobby should be mentioned as the AFC's leading ace of the war, with 29 victories.
    • You could also drop the names of Robert Little and Stan Dallas as the top-scoring Australian aces of the war and as examples of Aussies flying with the Brits, but that may be overdoing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took the liberty of copyediting the Half-Flight subsection, adding a new ref. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review, Ian. Some more excellent suggestions. Any and all help with the article is appreciated. I'm a bit under the pump this week in real life, so won't be able to put much time into the article until the weekend, unfortunately. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_I&oldid=351345794"