Talk:Australian Army Reserve/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review of this version:
Pn = paragraph n • Sn = sentence n

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
For an article of this length, the lead should really be four paragraphs. Also, the lead should summarize the contents of the article. For example, the era from federation up to the beginning of WWII is covered in nine paragraphs in the article (about a third of the body) yet only rates half a sentence in the lead
Expanded slightly, and broke into separate paragraphs. Done
Better, though I'm not sure I understand why the lead doesn't parallel the chronological setup of the text. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lead, P1, S6: the phrase "past decade" is ambiguous. It should be replaced with a more specific phrase like "from 1995 to the present" (or whatever the range being discussed is)~~
Done

There are quite a few sentences that are really long and should be split. Here are some of the worst examples:
Done

~~Lead, P1, S4, beginning For the first half…~~

~~Post World War I, P2, S2, beginning The compulsory training…~~

~~Post World War I, P4, S1, beginning Despite the upturn…~~

~~World War II, P2, S1, beginning As was the case…~~

~~World War II, P2, S2, beginning As such, once again…~~

~~World War II, P4, S2, beginning As the situation in the…~~

~~Post World War II to the Vietnam War, P4, S3, beginning A further change…~~
Was this one changed? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P5, S1, beginning In 1991, an attempt…~~

~~Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P5, S2, beginning The scheme showed…~~

~~Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P6, S1, beginning By the time that the…~~

~~Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P8, S1, beginning The continuing high-operational…~~

~~Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P8, S2, beginning In lower intensity areas…~~
Well, it's shorter than it was… ;-) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of sentences with weasel words that need to be addressed:
~~World War II, P3, S3: …in the eyes of many Australians…. In whose eyes? (this sentence also needs a citation)~~
Added the citations and reworded slightly. I don't think it should be changed greatly though, because it would change the meaning too much. I have tried to write it so to maintain a neutral point of view, but that is difficult in relation to this subject as it is actually a very emotive issue in Australia, even now. It was a widely held belief at the time (still is amongst Australians that don't know better) that the threat of Japanese invasion was high at the time. I have heard a lot of ancedotal evidence supporting this and many authors have confirmed it. I have added the citations and reworded slightly, but do not believe it should reworded any further. To do so would be to change the meaning completely. The threat of invasion was in reality only in the eyes of the people as it did not actually exist (the Japanese did not have the military capability to carry it out), however I feel it is a valid view point that needs to be asserted as it affected many people very greatly and affected the way in which the government formulated its policies relating to compelling the militia to fight in New Guinea. As the need to word it the way I have.
Reads much better now. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Post World War II to the Vietnam War, P3, S8, …there are those that argue… Who argues this? (this sentence also needs a citation)~~
reworded Done

I'm not sure that "Defence Act 1903", "Defence Act", or the like need to be in italics. I've not seen legislation titles italicized before.
That is a hang up from my university law days, when legislation titles were always italised. Likewise in many books published in Australia (I am looking at three right now). I will change if it is a drama, but don't see the need unless the MOS states that it is. I believe it is like the names of ships. Italics are used to draw the eye to a specific name.
Not a problem, then. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The "Contested vocabulary" section of the Manual of Style recommends against the use of whilst, preferring while instead.~~
Done

~~Post World War I, P2, S1: the as in …and as the government… is ambiguous. Is it used to mean because or while?~~
I have rewritten this now. Done

~~World War II, P4: The phrase "distinguished themselves and suffered high casualties" appears twice in this paragraph. It would be better to vary the wording to avoid repeating such a specific phras~~e
Yes, that was particularly heinous. I have tweaked now. Hopefully it is better now. Done

Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P1, S1: The article compares an apparently approximate number, 28,000, to a very specific number, 23,119. If the number was exactly 28,000, it should be noted in the sentence; otherwise it might be better either, (a), use a more comparable figure for the latter one ("just over 23,000"), or (b), rephrase to something that highlights the difference ("enlistments dropped by 5,000 to a low of 23,199 between…")
those figures were added in by another user and to be honest I do not have access to the source they used. As such I have taken your second suggestion and used that to reword the sentence by highlighting how much they fell by.

Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P5, S2: The antecedent of the it in …before it had been in operation… is probably supposed to be about the scheme and but reads as if the Howard government hadn't been in operation long enough rather than the scheme.
Done

~~Post Vietnam War to the new millennium, P8, S1: The phrase "high operational tempo" is rather jargon-y~~
Indeed, but I am fairly sure that a layman understand what that means. If I was to change that, I'd also have to change plug-in, round-out, etc. and I don't know how to explain those terms in any other words than those which have been used. Further, those are the terms with which the sources (which are civilian sources) use to describe those things, so I do not believe that they are words that are simply used in the military.
I won't presume to speak for all laymen/readers, but I don't know what the expression means. Does it mean there are a lot of operations going on simultaneously (or nearly so)? Does it mean that units engaged are advancing at a rapid pace? Or does it mean something else? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article really needs a good, thorough copyedit to tighten up the prose. As an example, here is a sentence from the "Post Vietnam War to the new millennium" section:

In lower intensity areas, such as East Timor to a limited extent, although more specifically the Solomon Islands, formed units of Reservists, albeit formed from personnel drawn from many units, have been deployed on peacekeeping duties in order to relieve the pressure being placed upon the units of the Regular Army.

This could be shortened to this:
In lower intensity areas, like East Timor and the Solomon Islands, Reservists drawn from many units have been deployed on peacekeeping duties to relieve pressure on Regular Army units.

and still convey the same information.
have tweaked sentence as suggested Done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
A few sentences or phrases need to have citations:
~~Post World War I, P2, S3: sentence is uncited~~
Done

~~World War II, P3, S3: this sentence needs to be cited (also contains weasel-worded phrase, noted above)~~
Done

~~Post World War II to the Vietnam War, P3, S8: this sentence needs to be cited (also contains weasel-worded phrase, noted above)~~
Done

~~There's a {{fact}} tag added by another editor that needs to be addressed~~
Done

In the first item listed in the "References" section it looks like the "Australian Government Printing Service" may actually be the publisher rather than the author (as is implied by the current listing). Since this is known as the Millar Report, should it be by Millar instead? Can you double check this?
Done
Yes, it should be Millar. I have added this now. Good spot.

In the "References" section there seem to be a mix of entries using {{cite book}} and entries that are manually formatted, which is giving inconsistent formats for some of the entries. (Note the location/publisher order in the Davies and Grey entries.) I'd recommend going with all {{cite book}} (preferred, because it keeps the entries consistent with other articles), or all manually formatted.
Done

Comment: Consider splitting the discursive notes out of the "Notes" section into their own. (Many other editors use "Notes" and "References" section; the former for discursive notes, the latter for citations)
Done
Looks good. One minor thing (may be my system or not): When I click on the letter next to the note in the Footnotes section, it doesn't take me to the placein the text where it is referenced. Compare to clicking on one of the ^ symbols next to the items in the "Citations" section. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The "Current Structure" section mentions units that are in 1st Division. Why aren't they listed?

Not listed because they are company or smaller subunits of higher regular formations (for example 27 and 28 Troop in 2nd Combat Engineer Regiment, which are a platoon level Reserve formations in a battalion equivalent Regular formation) and to be honest I wouldn't know where to find a complete list of them. If I cannot provide a complete list, I don't feel that a list should be provided. Additionally, to the best of my knowledge all Reserve formations that are higher than company level units are a part of 2nd Division.
Perhaps the text in the section should identify that only units of [particular subunit] or larger are listed. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems comprehensive to me (as a non-Australian). Before pursuing any high assessments (A-Class or FA), though, I'd recommend a peer review that might get a wider audience for the article
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Comment: All images are properly licensed and meet requirements, but this is a very text-heavy article: a few more images to break up the long expanses might be in order (especially with Australia's relatively more liberal copyright expiration terms).

I have added another image and it looks like Nick has too. In actuality it is not that easy to provide images for Australian military history articles because despite Australia's relatively more liberal copyright expiration terms, frequently Australian images get deleted by overzealous image policemen from overseas who maintain that somehow the US copyright laws override Australian copyright law and that there exits somewhere in the US a body that will enforce copyright on images for whom no one (not even the organisations that 'hold' the images) is able to assert copyright. Regardless, you are right it needs more images.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days.

I'm placing the article on hold for seven days so that the issues I noted above can be addressed. Remarks above prefaced with a Comment are suggestions for future improvements and will not affect whether the article is passed for Good Article status. In my opinion, implementing these suggestions will help with higher (i.e. A-Class or Featured Article) assessments in the future. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to mark items with a {{done}} or something like that that's great, but generally, you shouldn't strike others' comments without explicit approval to do so. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, my apologies. I was only doing that so that I knew what I'd done. I didn't see any problem with it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not getting back to this sooner. Overall, the article is looking better. There's are just a couple of outstanding issues that I see: the question about the one long sentence above, and the "high operational tempo" phrase. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. Okay, I think I've fixed those now. I actually thought I'd fixed that long sentence already, sorry. I have reworded the high operational tempo phrase to heavy operational commitment, but I don't know if this makes it better or worse. I see what you mean about the issue with the notes not linking...I will try to work out what is wrong with it. Not sure at the moment, yet, as I just used a template I found somewhere else. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]