Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ragnar Garrett

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 MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ragnar Garrett[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Ragnar Garrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Following on from John Wilton and Reg Pollard, I present another chief of the Australian Army. Like Wagner conceived his Ring Cycle, I seem to be doing it in reverse chronological order. Unlike Wagner, I can afford to stop at three episodes, because Garrett's predecessor has already been through ACR. While we're talking Wagner, one leitmotif unifying the stories of these three chiefs is the Army's short-lived experiment with the pentropic divisional structure -- Garrett enthusiastically initiating it, Pollard reluctantly implementing it, and Wilton mercifully killing it... ;-) The article passed a rather perfunctory GAN last year, so please don't spare the critical commentary. I have no plans to take it to FAC at this stage, but hoping it will have the legs for ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks, but overall it seems like it meets the criteria to me. I also adjusted the licence on one of the images. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for your edits and support, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on A3 Neutral Lead section eclipses length recommendations for an article of this size as per WP:LEADLENGTH. While this length is a general guideline and not a rule, there's nothing here to suggest it's a guideline we should ignore in this case. LavaBaron (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for having a look but I don't believe there are valid grounds for opposing on this point. Unless I've misread, the guideline says that a lead of one or two paragraphs is appropriate for an article of fewer than 15,000 characters, so two paragraphs for an 11,000-character article, as is the case here, is perfectly okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are exceptionally, almost artifically, long paragraphs. I still oppose but am changing my formal !vote to Neutral in the interest of keeping things moving. LavaBaron (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
  • "undertaking a staff course in England" This was not a staff course, this was the staff college course. Change lead to say that it was the Staff College, Camberley. Add him to Category:Graduates of the Staff College, Camberley!
    • For brevity in the lead I altered "a staff course" to "staff training" but could still spell it out if you think appropriate. Will add category in any case.
      You haven't done it yet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I did what I said I'd do, i.e. reword the lead slightly and add the cat. I figured the average reader of an Australian general article would be more familiar with Duntroon than Camberley, so mentioned the first in the lead but not the second but, as I said, if you really feel the lead is lacking without mentioning Camberley then I'll put it in.
  • Aside: If you're wondering why he had two AIF serial numbers, regular officers who were appointed to the AIF but subsequently returned to the regular army lost their AIF serial numbers.
    • Tks.
  • In Greece he was GSO2 on Blamey's I Corps, not with 17 or 19 Brigades
    • I don't think I mentioned the 17th, and Grey in his ADB entry says the 19th, not I Corps -- is Grey wrong?
      Aaargh! Did I say that??? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Honorary Colonel"
    • Done. Should that be all lower case though?
  • On returning to Australia, he became BM of the 2nd Cavalry Brigade
    • Do you mean in early 1942? I don't have a source for that -- I'd want to know the month he took that post and exactly when he then became senior operations officer in the 1st Armoured, which Grey doesn't spell out.
      (Reaches for the Army List) He was GSO1 of the 1st Armoured Division from 6 April 1942 to 27 October 1942. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, so what I have right now as in "Garrett was promoted to temporary colonel in April 1942 and became senior operations officer in the 1st Armoured Division, which served as a garrison force in case of Japanese invasion. He was posted to Army Headquarters, Melbourne, in October as Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles" is still correct, you're saying he was BM of the 2nd Cavalry Brigade before April 1942? Do you in that case have the date he got back to Australia and took that position? Sorry, I can access the Army List at the Mitchell but probably won't get back there any time soon.
  • Second World War: link "Brigadier" on first use; unlink on second use
    • Yeah, I didn't link first up because it was used with a linked person ("Brigadier Leslie Morshead") and I prefer not to have separate but adjacent blue links, but then one can run afoul of the link on first use rule...
  • After Greece he served with the British Army's Armoured Formations Middle East and Armoured Formations UK. (This was part of the plan to raise an armoured division in Australia)
    • You mean before he returned to Australia in early 1942? Again I don't have a source for that handy -- do you?
      (Reaches for the Army List) He was with the British Army's Armoured Formations Middle East from 17 June 1941 to 31 July 1941 and Armoured Formations UK 1 August 1941 to 5 April 1942 Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Some of this time will have been on boats. Need to pull his personnel file, which is down in Melbourne. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, tks, but you've confused me -- if he did this up till April 1942, and then he was in 1st Armoured from April 1942, when did he have time for the 2nd Cavalry Brigade you mentioned earlier?
  • "became senior operations officer in the 1st Armoured Division" I'm not sure that the readers will understand that this was the same as GSO1, which you call " General Staff Officer Grade 1 (Operations)" in the next paragraph.
    • I'm just going by Grey's terminology in the ADB.
      Which is not wrong. Just saying that readers might misunderstand. (If you do find an error in the ADB, don't forget that you can ask them to change it. I've raise change requests on three ADB articles, most recently George William Symes.)
      Oh sure, I haven't had occasion to correct the ADB so far but have let AWM and Air Power Development Centre know a few things, and they've been pretty quick with their fixes. Does the Army List call it GSO1 1st Armoured?
Yes, it does. Years of trying to paraphrase the ADB have given me great sympathy for kids trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant General Savige -> "Savige"?
    • I though it was worth noting his then-rank.
  • "a final mention in despatches" What does "final" mean here?
    • Removed.
  • "most from the 67th Battalion, remained by the end of 1948" But wasn't the 67th Battalion renamed 3 RAR by then?
    • The online sources (WP, AWM, Army) don't seem precise on that and I don't have my article sources for the statement (Grey and Pallazo) handy but unless I misread the latter, that's what they said.
      But the Wikipedia does. "On 23 November 1948 the 65th, 66th and 67th Battalions became the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Australian Regiment." (See Horner & Bou, p. 44) I think the problem is your wording, not your sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure about that -- 23 Nov 1948 to "end of 1948" is a very short time so I didn't really see the point of adding the name change when the link to the 67th goes to 3RAR anyway. Double-checking Grey in Google I think I can safely change "end" to "late", and the statement is quite accurate, isn't it?
  • "GOC Southern Command, which covered Victoria" Southern Command encompassed the 3rd, 4th and 6th Military Districts (ie Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and some bits of New South Wales)
    • Interesting, it sounds just like the RAAF's Southern Area Command... I'd gathered the Army's commands simply replaced the old state-based military districts but if you can point me to a source for what you've said... Or did I misread Palazzo -- I don't have him at hand to check...
      See Long, To Benghazi, p. 28. Which has a map and an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Tks, done.
  • "and to ensure compatibility with the US Army's formations" I would say: "and to ensure compatibility with the US Army's pentomic formations"
    • Okay.
  • "would acquire the FN 7.62mm rifle in bulk" Delete "in bulk"
    • Done.
  • "Principal of the Australian Administrative Staff College" Should principal be capitalised here?
    • Probably not, the cited sources don't.
  • "the Federal government brought in a new selective service scheme in 1965" Link National Service Act 1964
    • Okay.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for looking this over, Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, did you see my responses to your responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, this article reads well, and I think it meets the A-class criteria, although I see Hawkeye has made some comments above regarding the possible accuracy of a couple of things. The only thing I could pick up on as an issue is the doublelinking of Brigadier (the second usage being "Brigadier General Staff"). Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough -- removed the duplink. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • All the tool checks seem fine - no dabs, external links ok, no duplicate links, citation check tool reports no errors, etc
    • "That August, he announced to his senior officers a reorganisation of the Army that would strengthen the regular forces and reduce reliance on the CMF." In the context of Australian defence policy this was a fundamental change. I wonder if this should be emphasised? (suggestion only)
      • Yes, fair enough; my main source, Horner, in fact used the term "fundamental" himself so I've added a bit to this effect -- happy to discuss if you feel the wording can be further improve.
    • "He died on 4 November 1977 at Mornington, Victoria..." - do the sources say what he died from? (suggestion only)
      • Unfortunately neither his ADB entry nor Trove was any help here.
    • Otherwise this article looks very good to me and easily meets the A class criteria in my book. I found it very easy to read and quite interesting. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:08, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Ragnar_Garrett&oldid=719857061"