Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/New Zealand and Australian Division/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

New Zealand and Australian Division edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded the article and would like to get some opinions/suggestions before taking it to GAN. Thank you to all who stop by. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's great to see this article on a famous Australian and NZ unit developed to such a high standard. I'd like to offer the following suggestions for your consideration:

  • "there were more than enough volunteers for the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) to form a complete division with the surplus being sufficient to form a brigade-sized formation" - I'd suggest tweaking this to clarify that the intent at the time was to form a single division (plus a light horse brigade?) along the lines of the wording on the NZEF.
  • Perhaps add a bit about how Birdwood (the commander of the AIF) gained the right to decide how the NZ forces would go into battle - did the NZ Government agree to place them under his command, and/or to forming the composite division?
    • I have attempted to clarify the headquarters arrangements now. I think this meets your intent, but if not please let me know. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington and Otago Battalions" - can these be linked? (the structure of articles on NZ units of this era is a bit confusing, so maybe not)
  • Would it be useful to note Godley's position before being appointed to command the division and why he was selected for the role?
    • Added something on his previous position. Not sure about the second part at this stage. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the "Landing at Anzac Cove" section, am I right in thinking that the muddle of units lasted for the first week or so of the campaign? (reaching levels which approached total chaos at times). If possible, it would also be helpful to note the division's casualties during this period, given that losses during the landing phase of the campaign were much higher than many people realise.
    • Unfortunately, I haven't yet found anything that summarises the division's casualties. Will keep looking, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added something on this now, but unfortunately the figures I could find only go to the end of June 1915. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New Zealanders were organised into a composite division with the Australians and a naval brigade for the coming attack" - was this still the NZ and Australian Division, or did it have a different designation?
    • Waite doesn't provide a designation, so I have tried to make it clear it was an ad hoc formation. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New Zealanders advanced only 400 yards (370 m) before heavy machine gun fire pinned them in place, forcing them to dig-in. As they went forward, the New Zealanders came under heavy artillery fire from both flanks. With bayonets fixed, the New Zealanders attempted to charge across a position dubbed the Daisy Patch, near a dry creek bed and lacking any cover.[40] Coming under heavy machine gun and rifle fire, the attack was halted and the New Zealanders forced to dig in." - the narrative here is a bit unclear - the NZers dig in in the first sentence, advance in the next two sentences, then dig in again. Could this be tweaked to make the sequence of events clearer? (e.g., was there an initial advance, and then a second advance, or multiple thrusts?)
    • Yes, I was pretty confused when writing it, will take another look. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " By the end of the day, the New Zealand brigade had lost 835 casualties and was down to a strength of 1,700 men, having started the campaign with 4,000.[42]" - this might be out of scope, but does this and the decision to send complete mounted brigades as reinforcements mean that the Australian and NZ forces didn't have a pool of replacement personnel to draw on?
  • "Meanwhile, another landing would be made at Suvla Bay, to the north of Anzac Cove" - I'd suggest tweaking this to note that the landing would be made by other forces to avoid the risk of readers thinking this division was also to make it.
  • "Godley was placed in overall command of the assault." - was he also commanding the landing at Sulva? (I thought that a famously hapless British general commanded that fiasco)
    • Yes, you are right, Stopford was in command at Suvla. Tweaked. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if the division's HQ was re-rolled as the HQ of the NZ Division? Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything in Stewart about this. I assume so, but can't confirm. Stewart does mention that the corps staff for I Anzac and II Anzac came from the split up of the original singular corps, but doesn't seem to go into detail about divisional staff. I wonder if maybe @Zawed: might have anything in this regard? AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey @AustralianRupert:, I will look into this and come back to you. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have checked some other sources on the formation of the New Zealand Division, and there isn't anything explicit on divisional HQ. Reviewing Stewart again, it makes it clear that the NZ & A Division was renamed, which to me suggests its HQ did form the HQ for the NZ Division. Zawed (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Zawed, I have tweaked the wording of the section a bit further: [1]. Do you think that works? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misc comments from JennyOz - Hello AR, some typos and suggestions. No need to reply to each, just ignore anything not useful. Some things that tripped me up would be obvious to others:)

  • During the fighting at Gallipoli, the division landed at Anzac Cove on 25 April 1915 - 'During' gives no indication of how long fighting had been underway (ie merely hours), could add 'soon after the commencement' or 'on the first day of'?   Done
  • Allied - wlink to Allies of World War I   Done
  • During this period, the division attacked Chunuk Bair and Hill 970 - Hill 971?   Done
  • with the Canterbury battalion suffering - cap B   Done
  • who had had been ill - remove a 'had'   Done
  • Monash Gully - other mentions are Monash Valley or was there both a gully and a valley?
  • position around Walkers Ridge - Walker's   Done
  • destroyed part of Australian line - the Australian   Done
  • with preliminary objectives being Hill 971 and Chunuk Bair to the south-west - on the 'plan for the assault' image next to this text, Chunuk Bair seems east of everything but I can see on the 'key positions map' above that Chunuk Bair is south west of Hill 971, so it might be clearer to have "and Chunuk Bair to its south-west"   Done
  • deadlock.To provide cover - add space   Done
  • undertaken by both sides.[65] Tunnelling and sapping was also undertaken,[66] and several minor attacks were undertaken - 3 x undertaken, any alt words?   Done
  • Anzac - a little confusing when Anzac used for the location (eg landing around Anzac) and also for troops (eg Anzac divisions} but adding 'Cove' to all relevant would be excessive?
  • In addition, small groups of Ottoman troops continued to harass the Monash's troops as they felt uncertainly for their objective, which they were well short of by dawn on 7 August." - finding it hard to parse this sentence...   Done
  • harass the Monash's troops - remove 'the' (or remove apostrophe s)
  • as they felt uncertainly - 'as' should be 'and'?
  • they felt - can read ambiguously ie Ottoman troops or Monash's
  • uncertainly should be uncertainty?
  • they were well short of by dawn - their objective as in arriving at destination or of capturing Hill 971 and Chunk Bair before dawn
  • Meanwhile, the drive on Chunuk Bair by the Aucklanders - only the Aucklanders? Previously says Johnston's New Zealand Infantry Brigade   Done
  • Frederick Hughes - wlink   Done
  • Ottoman forces remained in possession of top - the top?   Done
  • A lull period followed for several days, - 'period' redundant   Done
  • of trench line, which were then - line singular so 'was' not were?   Done
  • Connaught Rangers - wlink   Done
  • according to Harvey Broadbent - wlink (or is the authorlink only okay?)   Done
  • and on 365 were fit afterwards - 'on' should be 'only'?   Done
  • New Zealand and Australian Division (NZ & Aus Division) - abbrev introduced but not used   Done
  • close quarters fighting - hyphen close-quarters?   Done
  • feint attacks - wlink   Done
  • Chessboard - ?   Done
  • gained another 300 metres (330 yd) - flip? all others are imp>metric   Done
  • and at 7 pm - 7:00 pm per all others   Done
  • a heavy blizzard fell - blew?   Done
  • Tel-el-Kebir - wlink   Done
  • was sent to Moascar, in reserve - Moascar Camp near Ismailia?   Done
  • February 1916, when Australian 4th Brigade - 'the' before Australian   Done
  • dismounted light horsemen arrived to make good losses - "make good losses" may not be understood. Perhaps 'make up for'?   Done
  • To make up for the deficiencies caused by the detachment to Krithia, and the losses from disease and combat,[37] in mid- May 1915, Australian and New Zealand mounted soldiers began arriving at Gallipoli as infantry reinforcements, the Australian 1st Light Horse Brigade, under Colonel Harry Chauvel, and Brigadier General Andrew Russell's New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade joined the division. - break up this long sentence or add a dash after 'reinforcements?   Done
  • to attend the horses - to attend to the horses or to tend the horses?   Done
  • in mid- May 1915, Australian and New Zealand - remove space after hyphen   Done
  • Total losses amongst the ANZAC Corps amounted to around 8,000 casualties among the corps in the period from the landing to 3 May. - rep amongst the ANZAC Corps /among the corps   Done
  • and by the evening of the 19th, a period of quiet followed - 'by' then 'followed' sounds iffy, maybe swap 'followed' for 'fell' or similar, or swap 'by the evening' to 'on the evening'?   Done
  • but the quiet was broken on 29 May, when the Ottomans attacked the Australian 4th Brigade around Quinn's. Mining operations had begun in May and although the Australians began counter-mining, early on 29 May, - remove first 'on 29 May,'?   Done
  • The failure of the second attempt to take Baby 700 represented the end - 'represented' sounds a little like it was officially planned, maybe 'marked' or 'saw' or 'determined' or similar?   Done
  • Later, around 5:00 pm - 'later' is redundant?   Done
  • Later, around 5:00 pm, the Allies decided to make another effort, with the Australian 2nd Brigade, on the right of the New Zealanders, launching a strong attack, which gained 660 yards (600 m). The New Zealanders joined the attack. - move NZs' position? eg The New Zealanders, on the left of the Australians, joined the attack   Done
  • Some passages with repetition though I appreciate they may not be avoidable...
  • Lacking artillery support to suppress the Ottoman defensive fire,[29] upon their arrival the Otago Battalion took heavy fire. - rep of fire   Done
  • good firing position into the rear of the Allied position at Quinn's, and necessitated heavy sandbagging along the tracks to protect those traversing the tracks up to the position. - rep position, rep tracks   Done
  • Forewarned, the Allies were ready for the attack, having moved reinforcements up behind the line. Just after midnight, heavy grenade attacks began along the positions held by the New Zealanders, and an artillery duel began. The attack began at around 3:00 am, as several waves of Ottoman troops attacked around the line. Beaten back with determined machine gun and rifle fire, the attack was repelled with heavy losses being inflicted on the attackers. - 6 x attack/   Done
  • The headquarters staff for this formation amounted to 70 officers and 550 men and for the most part was provided by the British, and was formally part of the British Army - 3 x 'and'   Done
  • Nevertheless, in the first effort, the New Zealanders attempted to charge across a position dubbed the Daisy Patch, near a dry creek bed and lacking any cover.[48] As they went forward, the New Zealanders came under heavy fire from both flanks. Coming under heavy machine gun and rifle fire from Ottoman defenders in the Gully Ravine,[47] the attack was halted after only 400 yards (370 m) and the New Zealanders were forced to dig in by 3:00 pm. Throughout the afternoon, the New Zealanders endured constant fire on their positions, which continued to inflict casualties. - don't suppose there's any way to reduce 4x rep of 'New Zealanders'? Maybe a 'they'?   Done
  • came under heavy fire from both flanks. Coming under heavy machine gun and rifle fire from - rep fire   Done
  • Caption "Divisional commander, Godley (centre), confers with fellow generals Chauvel and William Riddell Birdwood, Gallipoli, 1915" - why only Birdwood full name and wlink?   Done
  • Refs -
  • Brown / Broadbent - alpha order   Done
  • FitzSimons, Peter - authorlink   Done
  • Hart, Peter - authorlink Peter Hart (military historian)   Done

That's it for now. I'll look forward to following this article through to FA. Thanks and regards, JennyOz (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JennyOz:, I appreciate you taking a look. That was quite a list! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to help. Did you check 6th dot point Monash Valley/Gully? Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will check presently. Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Waite seems to use both, unfortunately. I'm not sure, sorry. I think Monash Gully was sometimes called Shrapnel Gully. [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/New_Zealand_and_Australian_Division/archive1&oldid=869093464"