Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2/3rd Battalion (Australia)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

2/3rd Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/3rd Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of 44 infantry battalions raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force (if the pioneer and machine gun battalions are counted) during World War II, the 2/3rd was among the first raised and its initial volunteers were members of the famed "'39ers club" (men who volunteered in 1939). Forming part of the 16th Brigade, it was assigned to the 6th Division and in early 1940 deployed to the Middle East, subsequently taking part in the first ground action Australian troops fought during the war around Bardia in early 1941. Later it fought in Greece, Crete and Syria, before returning to Australia and subsequently fighting in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese in New Guinea. Conflict of interest disclaimer: my grandfather served in this unit, fighting all the way through Bardia to Wewak where he was wounded by a Japanese sniper. Thank you to all who stop by to review or edit. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed at GA a few years ago and was impressed by this article then, which has continued to develop since. Some minor points though:
    • All images have alt text, no dabs, no repeat links, external links check out, images all seem to be licenced, captions look ok to me (no action req'd).
    • As you said the section on the Syrian campaign was a bit light on previously, but with your recent additions and the bit that I've now added I think this is probably sufficient [1]
    • In the lead this sentence might be misconstrued by someone that doesn't have an understanding of the topic: "it was one of only two Australian infantry battalions to fight against all the major Axis powers of the war – the Germans, Italians, Japanese and Vichy French – seeing action in North Africa, Greece, Crete, and Syria in 1941–42 before returning to Australia following Japan's entry into the war." Potentially this might sound like they fought all four (including the Japanese) in North Africa, Greece, Crete and Syria, which of cse is not what the sentence means. I wonder if it might work better like this: "it saw action in North Africa, Greece, Crete, and Syria in 1941–42 before returning to Australia following Japan's entry into the war, and was one of only two Australian infantry battalions to fight against all the major Axis powers of the war" New Zealand 2nd Division the Germans, Italians, Japanese and Vichy French." Or something like that anyway (suggestion only).
    • "New Zealand 2nd Division", should this be "2nd New Zealand Division" instead?
    • "Initially, 16th Brigade was held in divisional reserve..." → "Initially, the 16th Brigade was held in divisional reserve..."
    • Minor inconsistency with "2nd AIF" vs "Second AIF"
    • In the refs: "Dennis et al 1995. The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History" should probably state that this is the 1st edition. Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your review and edits. I think I've gotten all of these now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm taking a break from A-class, but this article is very FAC-worthy, and I'll be happy to review it there if you want to take it there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does that work for you, AR? Were you planning to take this to FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Dan, no plans for FAC with this one at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "less than a month later they occupied the coastal town of But another 6 miles (9.7 km) east": assuming that's right, many readers will read it as a typo. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Dan, I've checked the source...yes that's right. Thanks for your edits and review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • It was established with four rifle companies and a headquarters company consisting of several specialist platoons including signals, transport, pioneers and mortars platoons. Not quite. See Long I:52
  • Link El Kantara, Julis, Derna
  • the commander of the 19th Brigade ie Horace Robertson
  • Vichy French, Foreign Legion and French colonial forces attempted to resist the Allied invasion True, but a reader might misunderstand. All the opposition were Vichy French, so it's a bit weird then distinguishing the Foreign Legion and French colonial forces. Also, not all the Foreign Legion fought on the Vichy side; the 13th Demi-Brigade fought alongside the Aussies.
  • the transport had been attacked by German aircraft, and as it sunk, they were ordered to abandon ship sank?
  • Even though they would eventually have been starved out, the Japanese put up heavy resistance to the Australians' primary tactic of aggressive patrolling Far from certain that they would have been starved out. The Japanese had considerable stocks of food, and they cultivated gardens. They still posed a threat to the base at Aitape, which was why the Australians were moving them on.
  • During this time, contact with the Japanese was limited to small-scale actions and the main causes of Australian casualties were disease and accidents. Again, the Australians were not a garrison; their task was to reduce Adachi's force and free the 6th Division for operations in Indonesia.
  • Casualties from disease were mainly due to a resistant strain of malaria
    • Mentioned malaria, but I haven't yet found a ref for the resistant strain bit, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members of the 2/3rd received the following decorations: I think we can do without the "the following decorations:"
  • Consider moving the footnotes into the text. Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done for all except the one in the infobox. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hawkeye7: I really appreciate you taking the time to review. I've made the following edits: [3]. Please let me know if you think anything else is required. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Could I please trouble you for an image review? Thank you for your time. Regards,

Image licensing appears straightforward, all pre-1946 (PD-Australia and PD-1996) and links to sources all work; tweaked a caption and also fixed some formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/2/3rd_Battalion_(Australia)&oldid=689778628"