Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

The third article about an Australian machine gun battalion that I have worked on and brought to ACR (after the 2/1st and 2/2nd). I originally wrote the article three and a half years ago, but only recently took it to GA. The fourth such unit raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force, the 2/4th was assigned to the 8th Division and was formed from volunteers from Western Australia and completed its training in Perth and Adelaide, before undertaking garrison duties in Darwin throughout 1941. In January 1942, the majority of the battalion was hastily deployed to Singapore following the Japanese advance down the Malay Peninsula. There, they were involved in the ultimately doomed defence of the island and subsequently taken as prisoners of war. A smaller detachment of the battalion – having been left behind at Fremantle when they "missed the boat" – fought in the brief, and also fruitless, defence of Java, before also being taken prisoner and enduring over three years of captivity. I look forward to working with reviewers to further improve this article. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- so far just copyedited lead and Further Reading but it's early days and I should have time to go over the entire article before too long; points to follow:

Is Michael Anketell likely to get a WP article? If so I'd redlink him in the infobox, if not then I'd remove from the infobox as a "notable commander" since he wouldn't be notable by WP standards.
This may be a perennial question but grammatically I'd expect the general term "machine-gun battalion" ("machine-gun" hyphenated as a compound adjective); OTOH if the correct rendering of the unit name is "Machine Gun Battalion" (without hyphen) then I understand the attempt to make the former, general, instance consistent with the unit terminology (and it does appear consistent on a quick glance). Not something I'm too fussed about for ACR but it's the sort of style point that may come up at FAC if this is heading there...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ian, thanks for taking a look. I've removed Anketell from the infobox as you are probably right, he doesn't seem to be WP notable. Regarding the hyphen, yes I've agonized over this but went with consistency as this is how the main sources seem to present it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this at GA and believe it also meets the A class criteria. I made one minor tweak after another read through [1]. Anotherclown (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose on A3~~ Support Lead is not long enough. Sections are not sub-sectioned sufficiently given volume of text. Also, more images would be nice; somewhat a wall-of-text at present. LavaBaron (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, I've expanded the lead and added a couple more images now, although the issue is that there doesn't appear to be any images specifically relating to the 2/4th MG during the fighting on Singapore, so I have had to use generic images instead. In addition, I've tweaked the headers to break up the text a little, but if you have suggestion for another I'd be more than happy to add it in. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @LavaBaron: Please let me know what you think about the changes that have been made. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - okay, support LavaBaron (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ This is an excellent article. I've often wondered about the accounts of untrained Australian troops arriving in Singapore just before it fell, and was interested to see an explanation for this tragedy. I have the following comments:

"was one of four machine gun battalions raised as part of the all volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) for service overseas during the Second World War." - while this is correct, didn't some of the CMF machine gun battalions also become AIF units late in the war?
"allocated at a rate of one per division" were the MG battalions a core element of the divisions, or technically corps (or higher)-level units which were more or less permanently assigned to them?
Do we know why elements of the battalion didn't initially go to Malaya or Rabaul with the brigades of the 8th Division?
"a small detachment of 106 men" - was this given a designation?
"Despite several fierce naval battles, they managed to succeed in getting ashore" - this makes it sound like the Japanese struggled ashore. They actually landed after soundly defeating the Allied naval forces. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nick-D: G'day, Nick, thanks for these comments. I've tried to address these with these edits: [2] Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did a bit of tidying, there were – between – phrases which I think I remember seeing—should be—instead but revert if desired. There's a footnote needing a citation so I'll have a look for it. Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day Keith, actually per WP:DASH either style is fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it does, serves me right for relying on memory. Keith-264 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do the mid-sentence citations need to be there rather than at the end? Keith-264 (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, it depends on whether the citation covers the whole sentence or not, although it's not really a problem either way, IMO. Thanks for taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support: This is really a good article on the tragic story of this unit. I believe it meets all A-Class criteria, although I do have a few nitpicks:EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article uses both "World War II" and "Second World War": I would suggest consistency (the latter) rather than having both terms in use. Talking of which, the term needs to be linked in the lede and the first use in the main article.
- Done. Frequently, though, links to World War II and Second World War tend to get removed at ACR. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have yet to experience this, so was unaware. Not to worry.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"collective training", in the lede: this is?
- Tried to clarify, essentially it is after basic soldier skills have been taught: section, platoon, coy, and bn or brigade etc manouevres/exercises, i.e. working as part of a larger team, as opposed to say individual skills like shooting, drill, physical fitness etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your change works, and thanks for the elaboration here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate link for 23rd Brigade
- Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ranks need linking, i.e. Major General, Major etc
- Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1: "which was used to set them apart from Militia units": were Militia units numbered 1/?
- Clarified, hopefully: no, they didn't use a prefix at all. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your edit did clear things up, thanks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The militia is mentioned in the main text, perhaps wikilink it to Australian Army Reserve? Likewise link to Australian Army on first mention.
- Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"four such units were formed within the part-time Militia, by converting light horse units and motorising them while others were also raised later after the Second World War began.": part of a run-on sentence? In addition, the article states only four units were ever raised. This sentence states that they were formed prior to the war, but more were formed following the war? To me, the following sentence explaining the conversion of militia units to AIF units further adds to the confusion.
- Had a go at this. Please let me know what you think. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much more clear now, thanks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" the decision was made to recruit personnel for the 2/4th only from the west.": For any particular reason?
- Parochial in some regards, but primarily pragmatic. Added something. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
link to Northam, Western Australia?
- Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the 22nd Brigade was last Australian unit to cross": missing word
- Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a Japanese light tank": Do we know what kind, and can we get a link?
- Unfortunately, no. The source only describes it as a "Japanese light tank". I assume probably a Type 95 Ha-Go, but that is just an assumption. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to worry.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Internment and disbandment: Is shell shock the correct term to use? wikilink also needed.
- Added the link. Shell shock is the term used by the source. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only asked if it was the correct term, based off the info on the wiki article. However, as the source uses the term then thats that.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"two of whom reached Australia": If the details are available, and you think it is worthy of inclusion, a note here detailing how would be great.
- Unfortunately, Cody's narrative here is very confusing as he talks about men from other units at this point, not just the 2/4th MG. On re-reading it looks like I got this wrong (it was two men from the 2/18th, it seems), so I've adjusted it. Apologies. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries. Although, it is sad to see even more tragedy revolving around the unit. Having just read a little on the massacre at Alexandra Hospital, it seems Anketell was somewhat 'lucky' and that is a real poor choice of words I know. Tragic story.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving the photos around. "Members from the 2/4th at Quorn, South Australia, 11 October 1941" up a little to sit better in its section, and then move "Australian troops arrive in Singapore" to the section were the Aussies arrive in Singapore.
- Done, I think.
  - Thanks for your comments, I think I've got these. These are my edits: [3]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have left a few comments above in response to your own, although none are prompts for additional edits. The changes you have made look good, and I have added my support. Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks very much for your time and critical eye. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.