| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- consistency throughout with hyphenation of prefixes with double vowels ie re-organise but also reorganisation
Lead Y
- suggest mentioning the three additional light horse brigades that were sent as reinf to Gallipoli (where the 2nd Div is mentioned)
FormationY
- suggest breaking up the first sentence for clarity about coastal defence
 Done Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- suggest mentioning that MacLaurin was the only Australian-born brigade commander in the 1st Division, which is probably the most notable thing about him. The mentions of the notability of the other two begs the question of who he was.
- suggest rewording "enablers" in plain English, it is in-house military jargon
- unsure about wl of general officer ranks but not others. What is the rationale for that approach?
CommandY
- wl Major General
- might be worth mentioning Legge served in the Boer War
- might be worth mentioning that Godley was commander of the NZEF Done
- suggest Chauvel, now a major general and Monash, now a lieutenant general per MOS:LASTNAME
- not sure what is intended by this but all were members of the AIF.
StructureY
- per www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8888/Machine_Gun.html, the brigade machine gun companies usually had the state affiliation, but this was not maintained later in the war
 Not done
- wl plunging fireY
- suggest When the 2nd Division was formed in July 1915 it also did so without its complement of artillery.Y
- suggest three field brigades in 1914 to twenty... per WP:NUMNOTESY
- suggest These were the 54th Siege Battery...Y
- not sure about the italicisation of Imperial Mounted Division and Desert Column. MOS:EMPHASIS? Also, wl Desert Column.Y
- the Corps subsection doesn't mention the additional light horse brigades sent as reinforcements to GallipoliY
- moving to the II ANZAC Corps in July 1916 begs the question of which division moved, suggest reversing the order of mention to make it clearer Not done AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Y[reply]
- suggest A number of specialist units were raised, including three Australian tunnelling companies.Y
- The following year theyY
- suggest Motor transport units were also formedY
Weaponry and equipmentY
PersonnelY
- suggest comma after Ultimately thoughY
- I believe a brief mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enlistment would be in order, the AWM site has a page with some info. Not done AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I've added some material on this (and would like to add more as a note, but can't get the code to work - please see the talk page). The numbers are pretty dodgy-looking, for sad but predictable reasons given the discrimination at the time (and the poor quality of some of the references - this Victorian government website uses photos from World War II and the 1960s to illustrate the topic! Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Y[reply]
- suggest remained relatively steady if reduced should be rewritten to improve clarityY
- suggest replacing irreverence with lack of respectY
Uniforms and insigniaY
GallipoliY
Egypt and PalestineY
- "cavalry units"? mounted infantry.
- "The Australian's" Australians.
Western FrontY
- "recapturing it again"? was it recaptured again, or recaptured for the first time?
- suggest comma after "Combined"
- suggest eight weeks of fighting
- 63 divisions
- suggest Monash, now a lieutenant general
- during the Second Battle of the Somme
Other theatresY
DisbandmentY
LegacyY
I'm just going to hold off on this until this new section stabilises I'm happy with this section. I suggest that at ACR it might need some more fleshing out of the themes, but it's good to go for GA IMO.
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
- some mention of the "mythology" will be needed in the lead to meet WP:LEAD Y
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
- Just a query about Bean 1917. Why wasn't this source used, but the other volumes were?
- No particular reason, more just that it worked out that way. There didn't seem to be anything in that volume that hadn't been covered using other sources. Is there something you feel we missed? Anotherclown (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- The role of Bean in the mythologising of the AIF via his official histories and role in the AWM isn't covered, Bean isn't even mentioned in the text. Prior's Gallipoli: The End of the Myth and other similar books aren't mentioned or used. I think the mythologising aspect (and its counter-arguments) should be an integral part of this article. Without it, IMO it is incomplete.
- I've just added a para on this as a start, and will expand it tomorrow. I think that this material would benefit from multiple eyes and perspectives though! (I tend to be sceptical concerning the "Anzac legend", perhaps overly so). Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO you've made a good start. I'm also quite skeptical of the "legend", BTW. I've commanded Brits on operations, there were no discernible differences from Australians. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gday. I agree this certainly needs to be covered and its not being included was admittedly an oversight (when I look at my handwritten notes I included a "legacy section" but seem to have forgotten about it since I wrote it). That said I think care must be taken in terms of the level of coverage this receives - these matters require due attention here, but their detail should mostly be contained in other articles, in particular that on the Anzac legend but also Bean's article and that on the official histories, with only a summary here. I would be concerned that any more than that would be undue weight. While I agree there is still some expansion required to this section (perhaps a couple of sentences summarising the counter arguments are still needed for example), what Nick has added tonight is fairly close in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No mention of the number of Victoria Crosses awarded to members of the 1st AIF. Worth a mention. Y
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
- just the issue of the mythology coverageY
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
All images are from the AWM and PD.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
- suggestion for ACR - you could consider adding www.awm.gov.au/collection/P01703.001/ to further illustrate the Recruitment section
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
Placing on hold for seven days for comments to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Passing now, all points addressed. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
