Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2018 [1].

Second Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the presence of thousands of Australian soldiers in the UK during World War II. While the huge Australian Army establishment in the UK during World War I is reasonably well known, the much smaller deployments during World War II are not. This is something of a shame, as they are quite interesting. The largest of these deployments was 8,000-strong combat force which formed part of the mobile reserves which would have responded to the feared German invasion in 1940. In addition, over 5,000 released Australian prisoners of war passed through the UK on their way home during 1945. Other Australian soldiers dispatched to the UK included liaison officers, railroad engineers and some very cold foresters. Following the war, members of the AIF took part in an almost test-level cricket series and the 1946 London Victory Parade. This article may be the only online resource covering all of these deployments.

I have developed this article over the last year. It passed a GA review in December 2017, and a A-class review in January. The article has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your consideration and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, Nick, nice work with this article. I reviewed it at A-class and saw it evolve before that also. I have a few minor suggestions/comments, otherwise it looks pretty good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • War Office is overlinked in the Liaison officers section
  • in the Works consulted section, is there a page range for Beaumont's chapter in Dennis et al?
  • same as above for Beckett's chapter in Bridge, and Field's chapter
  • for Field's chapter, suggest adding the editor for Tobruk and El Alamein
    • The book doesn't identify the primary author as also being the editor of that chapter. It may have been commissioned and edited directly by Gavin Long in his role as the general editor of the series (which I think was the case for the corresponding chapter on prisoners of the Japanese in The Japanese Thrust). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • the title link for the Field chapter doesn't seem to go to Tobruk and El Alamein, its seems to go to Walker's medical series
  • "Loftus, Australia" --> "Loftus, New South Wales"? (earlier you use "Clayton, Victoria")

Image review

  • File:Released_Australian_POWs_marching_down_Horseferry_Road_in_1918.JPG: with no identified author, how do we know this is AustraliaGov? Unlike some of the other images, this was taken in a place accessible to civilians. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely as it's from the Australian War Memorial's collection. The photo appears to have been taken from a building on Horseferry Road in London. At this time the Australian Imperial Force occupied most of the buildings on the road. As such, the image was either taken by an Australian government employee or was donated to the AWM (an Australian Government institution). Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at GAN and again at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about in either review. I've gone through the additions/changes since, and I consider this article meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Factotem

[edit]

Prose (mostly nitpicks)

  • You sometimes run a leading subordinate clause directly into the main clause, e.g. In April 1944 two majors from the Army's Directorate of Research..., but other times separate them with a comma, e.g. In April 1944, the Department of Information... When I asked about this a while back, the response was that it does not matter which method you use, but it does need to be consistent throughout.
You missed a few, so I went through it myself. Hope that's OK. Factotem (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many instances where you use "with" as a conjunction, e.g. Several small engineer units were also sent to the UK, with up to 600 forestry troops being active there between July 1940 and mid-1943, which I believe is frowned upon. They should be replaced with proper conjunctions (in this example, "Several small engineer units were also sent to the UK, and up to 600 forestry troops were active there between July 1940 and mid-1943" would do it).

Lead

  • While the UK had accommodated... While implies concurrence, which is not the case here. Replace it with "Although"?
  • ...January 1941 in order to concentrate... Believe that "in order to" is generally frowned upon, and the "in order" can be deleted.
  • In mid-1944 AIF personnel were dispatched to the UK to establish facilities to accommodate and support... Personally I find the repetition of "to" clunky. I would write this as "In mid-1944 AIF personnel arrived in the UK to establish facilities for Australian POWs due to be released from German prison camps."
  • Significant numbers of released AIF POWs arrived in the UK as the war in Europe neared its conclusion during April 1945 and ended in May This sentence ends awkwardly. Does the "ended in May" refer to the release of POWs or the war? I think you mean "Significant numbers of released AIF POWs arrived in the UK in the last two months of the war in Europe"?

Background

  • ...airmen who had been trained under the Empire Air Training Scheme and several flying squadrons... Not quite sure exactly what you're trying to say here, but you're effectively saying that "airmen trained under several flying squadrons", which doesn't really make sense.

Liaison officers

  • His role included representing Australia on senior decision-making bodies... Not sure about this one. People can be on the board of an organisation, but aren't they generally in an organisational body?
  • Major General Rupert Downes, who was the Army's most senior medical officer as the Director General of Medical Services, arrived... Is it an aussie thing not to hyphenate the ranks of general officers, or a typo? Do we need to say "most"? Isn't senior in this usage a superlative? I would be tempted to write this sentence as "Major General Rupert Downes who, as the Director General of Medical Services was the Army's senior medical officer, arrived...".
    • I don't think that a hyphen is used here (eg, [2]). That change reads much better - thanks.
  • ...and helped to facilitate orders of medical equipment for the Army Did he facilitate orders, or the supply?

Arrival in the UK

Reorganisation

  • ...leading to the 2/3rd Field Ambulance being split in half to form the 2/11th Field Ambulance The use of "form" tripped me up by leading me to expect two units to be listed rather than just the 2/11th. Maybe "create" would be better?
  • Australforce was involved in the Battle of Britain. Invokes images of Australians in Spitfires and Hurricanes chasing Heinkels and Messerschmitts. Perhaps "caught up" would be more accurate than "involved"?
    • No, they were involved. The Battle of Britain wasn't just an aerial campaign (see, for instance, [3], [4], [5], as well as the official history which discusses the role of the Army alongside that of the RAF in its chapters on the battle (for instance, [6]). Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question comes down to whether "Battle of Britain" refers solely to the air battle or to the wider issue of defence against invasion. The latter indisputably involved army, navy and air force, but the former is, I think, the common perception of the battle. The article Battle of Britain seems to back this up. The source you provide makes no explicit mention of the BoB, and provides no sense of "participation", in relation to the casualty suffered on 13 July. It does state, on p. 305, "In fact, the ability of this army to defend Britain was not tested because the Navy commanded the seas girdling Britain and the Air Force defeated German efforts to gain control of the air. In the air battle the principle role was to be played by Fighter Command which included (in July when the Battle of Britain opened)...". This contradicts, I think, the assertion that "Australforce was involved in the Battle of Britain", and does so more explicitly than any statement on p. 307 that might be construed to support the assertion. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The B-class Battle of Britain article represents the outdated view that this was only an aerial battle (totally ignoring the huge RN role, and the large land force assembled in southern England). That said, I do take your broader point and have tweaked this to "Australforce remained on alert throughout the Battle of Britain" which is clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Currently working through a source review. It will take a few hours yet. Factotem (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for checking the sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The narrative on the 9th Division confused me a little. It took me a few attempts to figure out that Australforce became 9th Division, if indeed that is what actually happened. I think what confused me was the statement ...Australforce was to be used as the nucleus for a new 9th Division, which led me to believe that significant parts of Australforce/6th Division remained. The problem is compounded when you continue to discuss Australforce in the subsequent paragraphs, and apart from the appointment of Wynter as commander, 9th Division is not mentioned until the rather sudden re-appearance in Following the departure of the 9th Division... in the next section.

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • The situation seems to have been confusing. This was also raised in the A-class review, and the basic problem is that I can't find a source which specifies exactly when Australforce became the 9th Division/when the 9th Division was formally established. From looking at the Australforce war diaries on the Australian War Memorial website today it appears that this came into effect at the start of November 1940. However, this isn't explicitly stated, and the war diaries use Australforce and 9th Division pretty much interchangeably well after this time! As it doesn't really matter for this article, I've tweaked the text to refer to Australforce (which, per the primary sources, is correct).
See no problems with the responses so far, except for the issue of involvement in the BoB, which I've responded to above. Factotem (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more points:

  • There are quite a few instances of "in addition", which is often redundant. The two sentences "The force's administrative headquarters was in London, and large numbers of Australian training, medical and other support facilities were located in the UK. In addition, Australian soldiers frequently took leave in the country." might be better combined as "The force's administrative headquarters was in London, large numbers of Australian training, medical and other support facilities were located in the UK, and Australian soldiers frequently took leave in the country." A similar merge might improve the narrative relating to Dunhill in the second para of the "Liaison officers" section. There are a coule of other incidences, but "In addition to their military functions, the AIF personnel in the UK..." seems a perfectly legitimate use to me.
  • You use "at this time" quite a lot, which can also be redundant. For example, in the first para of the section "Arrival in the UK", you have already set the time period in the very first clause, so beginning the second sentence with "At this time..." is not necessary.

See User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing for more info on these issues. Factotem (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • I understand the preference at FAC is to have consistent ISBN formats. You have a mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.
  • Volume III of the work Australia in the War of 1939–1945, Tobruk and ElAlamein, appears to be authored by Barton Maughan. Field's contribution, Prisoners of the Germans and Italians, is an Appendix to that work. Adding the parameters editor1-last=Maughan and editor1-first=Barton, whilst not technically correct, would present this correctly in the Works consulted.
Just discovered that AustralianRupert also pointed this out. Barton Maughan is listed as the author in the Worldcat entry for this volume. Factotem (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but he's not listed at the editor anywhere. As the series had a general editor (Gavin Long), it's more likely that he was the editor of the chapter, and this was bolted onto the book. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jackson's Australians in Overlord missing publisher info (Media Marketing Group in Canberra, according to Worldcat)
  • Minor quibble, more an FYI and not a problem: You specify the 1952 edition of Long's To Benghazi, but the the OCLC ref you supply relates to the 1986 edition according to Worldcat. Both editions are 336 pages long, so page numbering in your refs should not be affected.
  • Same issue with Greece, Crete and Syria. Again not a major issue as pagination does not appear to differ.
    • Worldcat doesn't seem to have separate OCLCs for the first editions of these two books. The 1980s editions were reprints, with only the addition of new introductions which didn't affect the page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher for McClymont's To Greece appears to be War History Branch, Dept. of Internal Affairs
  • What makes the Australian Forest History Society's newsletter or Graham McKenzie Smith a reliable source?
    • McKenzie Smith is the leading expert on the structure and deployments of the Australian Army in World War II, and recently authored this vast and comprehensive work on the subject (which was supported by a grant from the Army). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any issues with the online sources, other than how the CWGC database is used (see below).
Except ref #18 ("Smart, Edward Kenneth"), link is dead. Factotem (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link works fine for me when I click it, and is still at the same url. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too now. Temporary glitch. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted spotchecks on Refs 3, 20, 35, 38, 65, 75, 83, 87 (as at this version of the article), which all checked out OK, plus the following, for which there are some mostly minor quibbles:

  • Ref #101 (Donohoe–Marques pp. 5, 7) Source does not constrain female contingent to Australian Women's Army Service; it actually states "...women who had served across the Australian forces" and specifically mentions the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force
    • That para gives the details of a female major in the Australian Women’s Army Service who took part in the contingent, and the page later refers to the PR material highlighting the involvement of "female soldiers". Page 11 also notes a report from the AWAS party in the contingent which referred to the experiences of women in the plural, so she wasn't alone. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the number of women, but the units they were from. You mention only the AWAS, but the source also mentions the WAAAF. This is a technicality. The article is not wrong, it just misses out a small detail. Factotem (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WAAAF was the female branch of the Royal Australian Air Force. This article is about the Australian Army. Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Silly me. Good point. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #102 (Donohoe–Marques pp. 10-11) Source states that the male and female contingents were sent to separate camps, and identifies Kensington Gardens only for the male contingent. It does not specify where the female contingent was accommodated.
  • Ref #84 (Field p. 801) Source states that AIF personnel were either sick or "protected" (whatever that means)
    • From the contemporary newspaper report, which describes a party from a field ambulance unit arriving together, I'd guess that "protected" personnel were medical personnel (who often volunteered to be left behind with wounded soldiers to be taken prisoner during retreats to care for them). But the source uses the term without explaining it! I've removed the reference to the 28 being ill, as this doesn't seem to have been the case. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #32b (McClymont p. 31) I don't see anything on that page to support the assertion that "The New Zealand Government also agreed for its forces on Convoy US 3 to be sent to the UK".
    • Good catch. The NZ Government had already agreed to this in April, and McClymont doesn't state that it was re-agreed in May (it seems like the NZ government maintained this position, but this isn't explicitly stated). I've corrected the page number and article. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #45 (Plowman p. 124) Where on that page is there support for the statement that "The 18th Brigade was the largest Australian formation on the convoy..."?
Yeah, I think that's a bit of a stretch. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: unstretched. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #107 (CWGC) I don't have any fundamental problem using the CWGC database as a source, but I believe it qualifies as a WP:PRIMARY source, and we have to be very careful how we use it. The source makes no mention of Australforce or the Forestry Group, so it appears to be your own WP:OR to specify these in the article. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to re-phrase the last para to "A total of 33 members of the Second AIF are recorded by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) in the United Kingdom as being buried in or commemorated at graveyards it administers. The men came from a variety of units, the majority of them infantry." or similar. This reflects only what can be confirmed from the source, without adding any evaluation, interpretation or synthesis.
    • Not at all. If you use the 'download results' button on that page it provides you with more detailed information on these men, which includes their date of death and the unit they were serving in (these also appear via the green arrows to the right of each person). The units listed here relate directly to the units listed in the article, and it's not OR to match this (for example, it lists five members of the forestry companies). I didn't seek to attribute the casualties who I was unable to match up - eg, those from various infantry battalions which didn't serve in the UK. These were presumably POWs who had been repatriated due to serious ill-health, but no source confirms this. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that having to download the results or click on each individual entry in the cited search result strays into analysis, which is specifically proscribed for primary sources. I think that, given the standards expected at FAC, you can still make the fundamental point you wish to make about 2AIF casualties based simply on the information readily available from the search results, without requiring the reader to dig deeper. Factotem (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so - it's just summarising what the source clearly presents in tabular form. No analysis is required to say that (for instance) five members of the forestry group died when the source clearly shows this. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, and I don't dispute that the data is in the source, but don't agree that we're permitted to do that. Maybe other reviewers can weigh in with an opinion. Factotem (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done now. Factotem (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC) @Factotem: I think that I've now addressed all your comments, other than the last one where we have differing views. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have. Just need some third party input on the CWGC issue now. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi Nick, I already made a few minor edits 27 May, but here are a few minor queries...

Thanks Nick, JennyOz (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, regarding Ref (now) 108 - I don't really feel experienced enough to talk to all the concerns mentioned by Factotem (evaluation, interpretation, synthesis, analysis), but if the database allowed interrogation to refine the search to list a subset of eg the Forestry Coy only members, you'd be able to cite that total as a separate result. That function however is not available so you have simply used the one source to achieve such results. I would think that the totals you are providing are more akin to the spirit of WP:CALC. Most importantly, as long as those figures are verifiable from that one source, I don't see any analysis.
I will be interested in learning from any others' opinions but in the meantime I have no deal breaking concerns so am happy to sign my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Jenny Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at ACR and believe it meets the FA standard. (I corrected one typo). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fifelfoo

[edit]

Support on HQRS, weighty coverage, coverage completeness against "white myth," appropriate primary use, weighty structure, citation style consistency. Obviously had I been reviewing in other forums I would have got to this earlier. However, Fifelfoo (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you read for the myth of the Clean Wehrmacht? The threat to this article is Battle of Brisbane-esque issues and War rape territory I suspect. Might also have Arthur Harris questions? Of course, this is dependent upon the sources you read, and my expectation is high regarding your reading. (AWM, for example, has a tendency to be hard grained against lying in my findings.) Solely a question.
    • A couple of the sources hint at the Australian soldiers often behaving badly (the seemingly high proportion who were sentenced to detention and the proposal that they be banned from the hotel in Colchester due to drunkenness), but neither states this. I've included what I could find, as well as a photo of Australian soldiers on leave in London where they appear drunk. The Colchester town council's proposal may have also been motivated by memories of the frequent poor conduct of Australians in World War I though, given that it was put forward before they arrived in the area. No sources discuss the troops committing rape, and they didn't see much fighting and weren't involved in any controversial battles, etc. The POWs had fought in Greece and North Africa, not the air campaign against Germany. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this topic require a historiography section? Your obvious reading of the source basis informs the answer, expected: no.
  • Similarly to the two above: AWM does excellent work: did they raise class, gender, colour/race/indigenous issues not apparent?
    • No. There were a very small number of Indigenous Australian soldiers in the UK, but as the sources only mention this in passing I haven't included it in order to avoid giving undue weight to the issue (which would also raise the risk of obscuring the much broader and more significant issue of the near total exclusion of Indigenous Australians from the AIF at this time due to policies which banned them from joining). I've covered the presence of women to the extent raised in the sources, noting also that they represented only a small portion of the forces due to the discrimination they faced. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no HQRS issues, and I see a treatment of sources based primarily on their quality by sampling.
  • Ought we request a technical feature? When I hover over a footnote I get to see the source cited. When I hover over a backlink I don't get to see the text preceding to the prior paragraph break or prior source set at the end of a sentence?
  • PRIMARIES are used appropriately. For example, "An Army officer also served on the staff of Australia's representative to the British War Cabinet. In March 1945 they were joined by RAN and RAAF officers.[15]" is trivium appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and the claim lays fundamentally within a secondarily sourced element for the narrative. Scholars would be disinterested in this point, encyclopaedia have different interests. Good work.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Second_Australian_Imperial_Force_in_the_United_Kingdom/archive1&oldid=849580916"