These are my suggestions for possible improvement:
in the lead "believed to be located in the area" - is this necessary? Was the wireless station located there or not? Perhaps say "which the Australians believed was in the area", or even remove it completely;
"his staff officer, Major Cyril Brudenell White completed plans for the Australian Imperial Force". Perhaps add: "his staff officer, Major Cyril Brudenell White completed plans for the creation of the Australian Imperial Force";
this might be tweaked: "The Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) was still being raised for this task, and as a prelude to an amphibious landing on the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain, ships of the Australian Squadron conducted a reconnaissance of the area, subsequently entering Blanche Bay on 12 August, whilst several destroyers also entered Simpson Harbour." Perhaps change to: "While the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) was still being raised for this task, as a prelude to an amphibious landing on the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain, ships of the Australian Squadron conducted a reconnaissance of the area. They subsequently entered Blanche Bay on 12 August, while several destroyers also entered Simpson Harbour";
there is a run on sentence here: "The Australians surrounded the town and proceeded to bombard it, meanwhile HMAS Encounter arrived on station and fired several shells at a ridge nearby". Perhaps replace the comma after "bombard it" with a semi colon?
slightly confused by this: "overall command of Lieutenant Commander Charles Elwell" and "the battalion commander, Commander J.A.H. Beresford" (who is in command of who? Isn't a lieutenant commander junior to a commander?);
"bayoneting all those they had captured" (all those doesn't make sense, if it had been all, then surely it would have been more than 30 Melanesians killed. Perhaps it should be "bayoneting some of those they had captured"?);
"consisting of half a battalion of 200 men" (perhaps just "consisting of 200 men" - half of a battalion seems to be a bit indistinct given the varying sizes of battalions);
"re-enlisted in the AIF" (this abbreviation has not been formally introduced - perhaps add it next to the first mention of the Australian Imperial Force);
this seems a little awkward to me: "unexpected ability to fight in close terrain, while their outflanking of the German positions had unnerved their opponents" (unexpected - by whom?, also subject switch). Perhaps reword to: "Regardless, the Australian expeditionary force prevailed largely because they were able to fight in close terrain, and their use of outflanking manoeuvres had surprised and unnerved the German defenders";
further to the above, I suggest slightly reorganising that paragraph. Maybe list the reason for the Australian success, then follow it by the not well managed part and then the bit about the battle becoming a side show in a wider war;
not sure about this: "the battle may have ultimately held little significance to the Germans as well" - is this speculation on the part of a source? If so, maybe it should be attributed, for instance: "Historian Joe Bloggs asserts that..." or "according to historian John Kafoops...";
in the Footnotes, perhaps instead of "See blah blah" it might be better to include an inline citation in the footnote. For example, see the way it is done in the 3rd Division (Australia) article;
A note in a footnote seems less accessible to me somehow. I have used this structure in a lot of articles but am unsure about the MoS, do you know if this is a requirement?
Anotherclown (
talk)
03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
No issues.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
No issues.
It contains
images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have
fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
No real issues, but I think the licencing on "File:Colonel Holmes at Bitapaka (AWM A03147).jpg" could be tweaked. As it is published before 1923, the warning is not required. Probably just replace with "{{PD-US-1923}}". Also, it should probably eventually be moved to Commons, so if you add "|commons" to the PD-Australia tag it will eventually be moved.
looks pretty good, IMO, although there a few issues to be addressed before it can be listed. Sorry for the long list (its mainly just tweaking). Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the extensive review. I'm left wondering how it passed ACR (due to so many of my errors) but I think I have delt with most of the points now other than the footnotes! Please let me know if it needs anything else. Cheers.
Anotherclown (
talk)
03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
These are my suggestions for possible improvement:
in the lead "believed to be located in the area" - is this necessary? Was the wireless station located there or not? Perhaps say "which the Australians believed was in the area", or even remove it completely;
"his staff officer, Major Cyril Brudenell White completed plans for the Australian Imperial Force". Perhaps add: "his staff officer, Major Cyril Brudenell White completed plans for the creation of the Australian Imperial Force";
this might be tweaked: "The Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) was still being raised for this task, and as a prelude to an amphibious landing on the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain, ships of the Australian Squadron conducted a reconnaissance of the area, subsequently entering Blanche Bay on 12 August, whilst several destroyers also entered Simpson Harbour." Perhaps change to: "While the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) was still being raised for this task, as a prelude to an amphibious landing on the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain, ships of the Australian Squadron conducted a reconnaissance of the area. They subsequently entered Blanche Bay on 12 August, while several destroyers also entered Simpson Harbour";
there is a run on sentence here: "The Australians surrounded the town and proceeded to bombard it, meanwhile HMAS Encounter arrived on station and fired several shells at a ridge nearby". Perhaps replace the comma after "bombard it" with a semi colon?
slightly confused by this: "overall command of Lieutenant Commander Charles Elwell" and "the battalion commander, Commander J.A.H. Beresford" (who is in command of who? Isn't a lieutenant commander junior to a commander?);
"bayoneting all those they had captured" (all those doesn't make sense, if it had been all, then surely it would have been more than 30 Melanesians killed. Perhaps it should be "bayoneting some of those they had captured"?);
"consisting of half a battalion of 200 men" (perhaps just "consisting of 200 men" - half of a battalion seems to be a bit indistinct given the varying sizes of battalions);
"re-enlisted in the AIF" (this abbreviation has not been formally introduced - perhaps add it next to the first mention of the Australian Imperial Force);
this seems a little awkward to me: "unexpected ability to fight in close terrain, while their outflanking of the German positions had unnerved their opponents" (unexpected - by whom?, also subject switch). Perhaps reword to: "Regardless, the Australian expeditionary force prevailed largely because they were able to fight in close terrain, and their use of outflanking manoeuvres had surprised and unnerved the German defenders";
further to the above, I suggest slightly reorganising that paragraph. Maybe list the reason for the Australian success, then follow it by the not well managed part and then the bit about the battle becoming a side show in a wider war;
not sure about this: "the battle may have ultimately held little significance to the Germans as well" - is this speculation on the part of a source? If so, maybe it should be attributed, for instance: "Historian Joe Bloggs asserts that..." or "according to historian John Kafoops...";
in the Footnotes, perhaps instead of "See blah blah" it might be better to include an inline citation in the footnote. For example, see the way it is done in the 3rd Division (Australia) article;
A note in a footnote seems less accessible to me somehow. I have used this structure in a lot of articles but am unsure about the MoS, do you know if this is a requirement?
Anotherclown (
talk)
03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
No issues.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
No issues.
It contains
images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have
fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
No real issues, but I think the licencing on "File:Colonel Holmes at Bitapaka (AWM A03147).jpg" could be tweaked. As it is published before 1923, the warning is not required. Probably just replace with "{{PD-US-1923}}". Also, it should probably eventually be moved to Commons, so if you add "|commons" to the PD-Australia tag it will eventually be moved.
looks pretty good, IMO, although there a few issues to be addressed before it can be listed. Sorry for the long list (its mainly just tweaking). Regards,
AustralianRupert (
talk)
18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the extensive review. I'm left wondering how it passed ACR (due to so many of my errors) but I think I have delt with most of the points now other than the footnotes! Please let me know if it needs anything else. Cheers.
Anotherclown (
talk)
03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply