Talk:New Zealand and Australian Division/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is in good shape. A few comments from me:

• in general, it needs to be made clearer in the lead and immediately where relevant in the body that the mounted troops of the division were "mounted infantry" and fought at Gallipoli dismounted.
• Wellington Battalion needs to be linked to Wellington Regiment in the ORBAT box
• link Australian Light Horse for "light horse brigade"
• suggest "another brigade-sized formation."→"another brigade."
• suggest re-ordering per "By late 1914, the NZEF and most of the AIF were in Egypt to complete their training prior to heading to the Western Front in France, having been diverted from their original destination of the United Kingdom."
• suggest "included two mounted infantry brigades"
• suggest "On 26 January 1915, the four infantry"
• link field ambulance
• link Ottoman Army (1861–1922) at first mention of the Ottomans
• suggest "Colonel (later Brigadier General Sir) John Monash's..."

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've addressed the first round of comments. These are my changes: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• the landing narrative would benefit greatly from being expanded and broken down to battalion level, as it was all a little confusing on the day to talk about brigades. I just think it needs to be clearer. Could it be broken down in more detail ie by battalion, using Waite and Bean? That might help.
• the landing chronology in the second para is a bit confusing, first it talks about the attempt on Gabe Tepe, which happened on 4 May, then we're back to the second day etc. Can you check when the attack on Nibrunesi Point was undertaken, slot it in chronologically, and perhaps explain where it was/its importance as well? The Gaba Tepe attack isn't even really germane to NZ&A Div, so you could just take that out. Also, the way this reads it would be easy to make the mistake that the Australians that tried to capture Gaba Tepe were part of this division (ie 4th Bde), whereas they were 1st Division troops.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Added some more detail including timings the battalions came ashore etc, and reorganised the section a bit. Moved the Nibrunesi raid down in the narrative, and identified the Australian troops that attacked Gaba Tepe. Also mentioned a second raid, in mid-May. These are my changes: [2] AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Should also be made clear that during 25 April, all NZ and A troops ashore were under Bridges' command, not Godley's. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Added: [3]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• What Australian battalions were involved in the attack on the southern side of Baby 700?
  • Added this in: 13th and 16th led the assault. 15th had a minor role. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• "To make up for the deficiencies caused by the detachment to Krithia" is a little early in the narrative, as this move is introduced in the following subsection. In fact the rest of the para from this point should probably be moved to after the Krithia subsection.
  • Moved the whole paragraph. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• "he requested two brigades" I think as overall commander, Hamilton "ordered" them?
  • The source says "asked", so I figured I would reword it: [4] AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• suggest "New Zealand brigade"→"New Zealand Infantry Brigade"
• Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• "the Ottomans attacked the Australian 4th Brigade around Quinn's" when was this?
  • 29 May, clarified. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• "were carried out by the Ottomans"
• suggest "now Major General Andrew Russell"
• suggest dropping the quotes from "of the "New Zealand Division"" and linking
• suggest "While the 4th Brigade would be used to form part of the Australian 4th Division"
• suggest "The division's mounted elements were re-united with their horses and organised"
  • Done all of these. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• author-link Henry Gullett
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• the article might benefit from adding scanned maps from Bean
  • Added one for Baby 700, but I am a bit concerned about putting too many images in. While I recognise that maps are helpful, I was hoping to balance maps with photographs as well and in some places I'm risking sandwiching. The evac section might warrant an image, which I will look for before ACR. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• the icons for the NZMF and Aust Army in the infobox could be dispensed with, the Aust Army one isn't resolving for me and anyway is the current one, not the contemporary one.
  • Removed, I think the icons are more trouble than they are worth most of the time. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think the licence for File:New Zealand Infantry Brigade staff before Krithia attack.jpg is right
  • Wasn't sure as the electronic source actually used that particular licence: [5]. Anyway, went with PD-NZ and PD-US-1923. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for your time with this, PM. There was probably a bit more for you to do than I would normally be comfortable with asking of a GAN reviewer. These are the last lot of changes: [6]. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

All good. I often find that co-noms can be a bit like that, as there isn't one consistent editing approach being used. I am also probably more demanding than others at GAN, especially on subjects I have some knowledge of. This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, PM. I hasten to add that the responsibility for the errors definitely lies soley with me. Hope you are having a nice, relaxing weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)