Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/10th 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 Kges1901 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

10th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) and AustralianRupert (talk)

10th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The heavy lifting on this article has been done by AustralianRupert, but I'm co-nominating as I have a fair bit of interest in it. The 10th Battalion was the first battalion raised in SA, and was part of the covering force for the landing at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915. After fighting for almost all of the Gallipoli campaign, it then went on to the Western Front where it was involved in many major battles, including Pozieres, Menin Road, Hazebrouck and the Hundred Days Offensive. It continued as a part-time unit during the interwar period, but never served outside Australia in World War II. After that war, it was part of the part-time forces in various forms, and it is currently represented in the Australian Army ORBAT by the part-time 10th/27th Battalion, Royal South Australian Regiment. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Australian_9th_and_10th_battalions_Egypt_December_1914_AWM_C02588.jpeg: not seeing that credit line at the source site?
    • Removed/commented out the unsupported credit line on the Commons description page. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:10th_Bn_3rd_Brigade_1st_Division_1st_AIF.png is too simple to warrant copyright protection
  • File:Stanley_Price_Weir_portrait.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day, Nikki, thanks for taking a look. I've addressed the first two points, but will have to leave the third point to PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria, the long answer is I reckon it was published about the time it was taken (likely around March 1921) due to Weir's apparent age in the photograph, his wearing of the 10th Battalion unit colour patch, and the fact that the photograph was of him wearing colonel's rank. Despite his honorary rank of brigadier-general, he was made honorary colonel (an appointment rather than a strict rank) of the 10th Battalion in 1921, and it is highly likely the photograph is associated with that occasion. His lack of WWI medal ribbons supports the date, as those medals weren't distributed until a few years later. The photograph would have been displayed within the 10th Battalion barracks during the period he was honorary colonel (for recognition purposes). I know I'm making a few assumptions here, but they are based on an intimate knowledge of Australian Army traditions and Price's history (as I wrote the FA on him). I assume that display would be akin to publication for photographs? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Infobox: "Purple over Light Blue" Why the upper case L and B?
    fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unit Colour Patch" Similarly.
    Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang up from too much service writing on my part, I guess, although for me it is a UCP, therefore a Unit Colour Patch. I can live with it being decapitalised, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Members from the 10th Battalion" Either "from" →'of'; or "Members" → 'Soldiers'.
    of, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provided training to national servicemen" Optional: I am not sure if a battalion can "provide" training. Possibly 'served as a training unit for national servicemen' or similar?
    done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually battalions can provide training and do to this day -- usually individual, but also collective (platoon/company for instance). In World War I and II, most battalions ran their own basic training courses initially (before deploying after which training establishments probably took over), as well as more specialised unit-needs courses. Even today, regular infantry battalions and engineer regiments that I've served in have run initial employment training courses (when there is a need to surge and training establishments can't meet throughput needs), as well as other unit needs courses such as driver courses, tactical combat casualty care, specialist weapons, unarmed combat etc. In the Reserve training system, units like AUR are established for the sole purpose of providing training to recruits and officer cadets for instance. The change is fine, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AustralianRupert. Yes, I realised that. (Been there, done that.) My point was a pedantic one about whether, linguistically, one can/should speak of the battalion providing it. But I was/am content to go with that usage, hence the "Optional".
  • Optional: To my eye the lead seems a little over detailed. You may want to think about a modest trim. If you decide not to, this is not an issue.
    I think it is about right, the Gallipoli campaign is very important to this unit, so more detail on it is justified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late February, the 3rd Brigade received orders that it was being committed to an operation in the Dardanelles" I realise that you have blue linked "Dardanelles", but it may still be helpful to give a couple of in line words locating it.
    done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was housed on the ship for the next seven weeks, although this was spent ashore" This reads a little oddly. Is there a word or two missing?
    tweaked, hopefully this is better? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
  • "Gallipoli campaign" IMO there needs to be at least a sentence, preferably more, giving the background for the campaign, and similar for the landing. A non-specialist reader - I appreciate that there may be few of those in Australia - is likely to be confused.
    • Added something to clarify why they were going there, building on what PM added: [1] AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me.
  • "Ariburnu Ridge ... Sari Bair Range ... Bolton's Ridge ... Lone Pine ... Silt Spur" A map would be helpful.
    • Added a map with this edit: [2] It has most of these locations on it, but not all unfortunately. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that we have to go with what we have. (I have had to use less than ideal maps more than I would wish to myself.)
  • "before returning to Anzac" Would that be Anzac Cove?
    Yes, adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "launching an offensive around Suvla, Cape Helles and Anzac" Similar to above, this would benefit from some context, some locational guidance, and, possibly, a map. (There are a number here.)
    • Adjusted the wording to try to put the locs in context: [3] Added a map with this edit: [4] It has most of these locations on it. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Easier to follow now, IMO.
  • "before embarking upon the transport Princess Ena" Suggestion only: "upon" →'on'.
  • "just before New Years" ? 'New Years Day'? 'the new year'? Or is "New Years" an Australian expression?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as the German offensive was turned back" Was it "turned back", or was it 'halted'?
  • "received a King's Colour" Why the initial upper cases?
    • I believe it is a proper noun for a particular type of banner/flag: decapitalising it as "a king's colour" wouldn't be correct, IMO, although maybe I have been too indoctrinated to see the issue. Happy to change if you disagree. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get excited about it. It seems to me to be one of those where a specialist group capitalise things important to them. I don't see that "a king's colour" should be any more a proper noun than "a king's crown". Leave it if you wish.
I had a check of some of my sources to see how they treat it. Dennis, Grey, Morris and Prior's Oxford Companion to Australian Military History uses "unit colours" as a generic term with lower case, but also "Queen's Colour" and "Sovereign's (King's or Queen's) and Regimental" as capitalised when referring to the specific. I think this is because it is definitive within the unit, i.e. it is "the unit's King's Colour". But this is probably bush lawyerism on my behalf. Jobson's Looking Forward, Looking Back: Customs and Traditions of the Australian Army also uses "Colours" and "Queen's Colour" etc with capital letters. But then uses "the King's and the regiment Colours" (with varied caps). Jobson is an ex RSM, though, so may have a tendency to over capitalise. So, not sure... Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know Jobbo, ex-RSM (Ceremonial) of the Australian Army and a WO2 when I was a staff cadet at Duntroon. In my experience, Queen's Colour, King's Colour and Regimental Colour always have initial caps, as they are a type of proper name, not a common name for a general item. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the threat to the garrison diminished, the garrison was reduced" garrison twice. Possibly replace the first with 'invasion'?
    • Adjusted to "port" instead. It wasn't just invasion they were defending against, and the threat arguably passed well before that. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage of the history of the 2/10th Battalion seems skimpy. Is it not considered a "true" part of the 10th Battalion?
    • G'day, while they share a similar numerical designation and state association (and they may even have some sort of spiritual link -- if one believes in such stuff), the 2/10th is a different unit -- please see 2/10th Battalion (Australia). The two units existed in parallel to each other during World War II, and served in different branches of the Army (Militia v. the all volunteer Second AIF). Expanding coverage here would risk becoming too detailed. It would also be a challenge to the current schema of dealing with the infantry battalions of the First and Second AIF separately, which has been the accepted practice on wiki for longer than I've been here (more than a decade). There are 60 First AIF battalions that are treated separately to the 36 Second AIF battalions; I would not be keen to merge their articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. The schema you are using seems fine. I should perhaps have done more research before posting. That said, would it - very, very optionally - be possible to put a little more stress on "the units of the 2nd AIF were considered separate from those of the Militia"? Maybe reorder that sentence to 'The units of the 2nd AIF were considered separate from those of the Militia, although many members of the Militia volunteered to join the 2nd AIF.' or similar? (Do you really need "many existed at the same time"?)
Adjusted with this edit: [5] AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling work; it reads well. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • G'day, thanks for taking a look. I have added my responses above. Please let me know if you think it needs further work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the improvements and/or explanations. A couple of thoughts above for your consideration, but I am happy to support the article as it stands; it meets all of the criteria and reads well. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've adjusted one and added a bit more thought about the other. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • all-volunteer Australian Imperial Force during World War I Link WWI here.
  • raised shortly after the outbreak of World War I as part Same as above.
  • November and proceeded towards Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Khedivate of Egypt's article.
  • At approximately 4:30 am on 25 April 1915 Unnecessary 1915.
  • Pipe Turkish to the Ottoman Empire.
  • the 10th Battalion sailed for Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt's article.
  • Pipe German to the German Empire.
  • Link North Africa.
  • Link New Guinea.
  • Link Borneo.
  • Link World War II.
  • a shortage of fresh water on the island You mean freshwater?
  • reinforcement parties and machine gun crews Machine gun needs a hyphen.
  • was raised as part of the all volunteer All volunteer needs a hyphen.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, thanks for taking a look. All done except fresh water, which is an adjective-noun combination in this case, not a compound adjective. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to give my support to you guys. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in very good shape. I have the following comments:

  • The coverage of this battalion's service in Gallipoli in the lead is probably too detailed (especially given that its activities in 1916-18 are covered more concisely)
    • G'day, Nick, thanks - I had a go at reducing the lead with these edits: [6]. Does that help at all? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)
  • I'd suggest making it clear in the material on the battalion being selected for Gallipoli that the entire 1st Division was committed
  • "According to the Australian War Memorial they are "believed to have penetrated further inland" than any other Australian unit" - I'd suggest framing this though in the context of the chaos and break down of command and control which occurred at Anzac on 25 April - it's not necessarily a good thing to have happened, given that small disorganised groups of soldiers penetrated much further than was sustainable. Peter Stanley's book The Lost Boys of Anzac has a good discussion of this topic.
  • " In September, the 2nd Division arrived as reinforcements." - I'd suggest tweaking this to note that the 2nd Division was reinforcing the forces at Anzac, not only this battalion
  • "The attack so impressed the British Inspector General that he described it as "the best show ever done by a battalion in France" - can more detail be provided? It would be an interesting point of comparison against the battalion's fighting at Anzac
  • "as most of the former 48th Battalion personnel were used to raise a light anti-aircraft regiment" - can the LAA regiment be identified from the sources?
  • "In 1943, the 10th/48th Australian Infantry Battalion was gazetted as an "AIF" unit,[46] which meant that its members could be deployed outside Australian territory" - was this because at least a certain percentage of its soldiers had volunteered for the AIF? (which, as I understand it, is how most CMF units became AIF)
  • As a suggestion for FAC, the notes for each CO in the 'Commanding officers' section would probably work better as a table (which would make the dates of command clear, and encourage readers to consult this useful material). Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a go at converting this into a table with this edit: [7]. Please let me know what you think. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are all now addressed - great work Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • References 40, 41, 52 & 70–80. do not have a closing full-stop.
  • Could reference 69 specify "Australian Department of Defence", as the current publisher title is a little ambiguous.
  • I can't comment overly on whether the sources are considered reputable; but it is predominantly sourced to published offline sources which are likely to have undergone a robust review and editing process. The only slightly contentious source, I would suggest, is Lock 1936, essentially a primary source for this article. However, as that is only supporting a bland list of Commanding Officers and some other small details, I have no real concern about its use. (NFA)
  • Inline quotes are always appropriately followed by a reference. (NFA)
  • There are no dead links, and online sources are archived for posterity. (NFA)
  • There is no evidence of close para-phrasing or copyvio against the heavily used reference 3; good faith assumed on the rest, most of which are offline. (NFA).

Nothing much of concern here; mostly very minor typographical fixes to be made. Harrias talk 12:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done, thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:08, 27 August 2019 (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/10th_Battalion_(Australia)&oldid=912805901"