Talk:2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Initial comments

• Some of the points from the ACR for 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) might be relevant here, specifically:
  • "The concept had originated within the Australian Army during the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915..." in the 2/1st MG Bn you reworded this to "Developed by the British Army, the concept within the Australian Army had its genesis during the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915..." I think this wording should probably be adopted here too for the same reason.
  • "During the inter-war years, the machine gun battalions had been deemed unnecessary and, as such, when the Army was reorganised in 1921..." perhaps split this like you did at 2/1st MG Bn.
  • Maybe clarify what is meant by "motorised" per Nick's cmts on the 2/1st MG Bn ACR also (i.e. what equipment it used etc)? Also wikilink it.
• Other initial points:
  • Wikilink Cairo, Gaza and Brisbane
  • I wonder if there anything in the official histories that should be included? I will have a look in the next few days and let you know.
  • More to follow (I also want to check through the Bn history to see if anything more should be included). Anotherclown (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look. I've made a few adjustments based on these comments. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Hey mate a few more points:
        • You wrote: "One company supported the 20th Brigade during its assault on Tarakan Island in May, while the rest of the battalion supported the landings on Labuan Island and around Brunei Bay during the Battle of North Borneo." There are a couple of issues with this:
          1. it was 26 Bde that landed on Tarakan (not the 20th which was at Labuan)
          • Cheers, you are right, of course, although the AWM source says 20th. I've adjusted this, but if possible, we should check Oakes to make sure what he says. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
          1. perhaps make it clear that "one company" was 'D' Coy? - ref is Oakes p. 236.
          • G'day, I've added this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
        • According to the Bn history the author Eric Lambert served in the bn and used "some of his experiences as a member of the Battalion in the Middle East as background to his novels, notably "The Twenty Thousand Thieves" - Oakes p. 14. Perhaps this should be included?
          • Thanks, I've added a short sentence on this. Could you check you are happy with where I added it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes that looks fine to me, cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
        • I wonder if a bit more detail should be included about the Bn's final campaign? It seems a bit light on. There is of cse material in the Bn history but I'd imagine you don't have this any more. Is that right? If not I'll try and draft something and post it here for your consideration. Anotherclown (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Agreed. Yeah, unfortunately I returned the book to the library some time ago. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
            • No worries it shouldn't need much as it was a short campaign and even the Bn history deals with it fairly briefly. I'll see what I can come up with. Anotherclown (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok I couldn't sleep so I've added a bit now, my edits are here [3]. Pls review and reword if necessary. I should be able to do the full review tomorrow hopefully. Anotherclown (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding that information; it looks good to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [4] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: no dead links [5] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: images have alt text [6] (no action req'd).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [7] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "The 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion was one of four machine gun battalions that were raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) for service overseas during the Second World War.[1] Motorised infantry units, equipped with wheeled motor vehicles and tracked carriers,[2] the machine gun battalions were formed during the Second World War..." Mention of the Second World War twice in the same short paragraph seems a little redundant, I wonder if maybe you consider binning the first instance? (minor nitpick suggestion only)
  • Wikilink Aquitania to RMS Aquitania
  • Prose here is a little repetitive: "Towards the end of this period – January 1942 – the battalion was reassigned to the 9th Division and with it, the battalion..." specifically "the battalion" twice in proximity. Perhaps reword one instance?
  • Likewise here: "This came to an end in late June when until the 9th was rushed to El Alamein in late June", specifically "late June" twice, bin the second instance entirely as redundant I'd suggest.
  • Wikilink Queen Mary to RMS Queen Mary
  • Some minor inconsistency in hyphenation consider "machine gun" vs "machine-gun" (1 instance)
  • "During this time, the battalion was notionally transferred to the "tropical war establishment"..." I wonder if linking jungle division somewhere here would be helpful to readers? (suggestion only)
    • Thanks, I think I've dealt with all of these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • The article is sufficiently referenced to WP:RS and seems to reflect the sources available.
  • No issues with OR I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered for GA.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Nearly done, only a couple of minor points above to address / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. Sorry, there were so many points. I appreciate your patience, though. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. Your changes look fine so I'm passing this now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)