Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1st Armoured Brigade (Australia)

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Nick-D (talk)

1st Armoured Brigade (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is about a rather short lived formation of the Australian Army that was raised during World War II. Intended to serve in the Middle East, Japan's entry into the war meant that the brigade was never deployed there, instead being held back for defensive duties in the event of an invasion that never came. It was eventually broken up, although some former elements saw service in the Pacific with other formations. In the post war period, the brigade was re-raised briefly within the part-CMF, remaining on the order of battle until 1957 when it was broken up and its constituent units reallocated to other formations. The article is a collaboration between myself and Nick-D and we'd welcome any comments about how to improve it further. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this at GAN, so haven't got much to add. A few minor things:

Lead
  • link the states, for the general reader from outside Australia
  • suggest 1st Australian Armoured Division→ 1st Armoured Division
  • mention that some of its constituent units did see active service after being detached
  • suggest "serving as a Citizens Military Force unit"→"serving in the Citizens Military Force", as it wasn't a unit, it was a formation
  • perhaps explain in the lead that the reason large armoured formations weren't required was a focus on infantry-armour cooperation during jungle operations
Body
  • suggest This formation included six armoured regiments and two brigade headquarters within the all volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF)→This formation included two brigade headquarters commanding three armoured regiments each, drawn from the all-volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF)
  • link corps and Division (military)
  • there is a bit of repetition with explaining the six armoured regiments in an armoured division, perhaps this could be trimmed slightly?
  • link scout car and cruiser tank
  • link brigadier
  • for part-time forces link Australian Army Reserve
  • link Qld
  • for Greta, perhaps include the full link with state here, then drop NSW from Tamworth, as it is fair to assume we are still talking about the same state when they are in such close proximity in the text, drop NSW from Narrabri and Gunnedah
  • comma after "after the fall of Singapore"
  • suggest moving "The two officers swapped positions again in January 1943." to the appropriate point in the chronological narrative
  • suggest "The following month, one of the brigade's armoured regiments – the 2/6th" – was→"The following month, the 2/6th Armoured Regiment was"
  • link Territory of New Guinea for New Guinea
  • for Western Command, link 5th Military District (Australia)
  • comma after "amphibious capability"
  • link Puckapunyal
  • for Armoured Centre link Combined Arms Training Centre (Australia)

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: G'day, PM, thanks for taking another look at this. I think I've gotten all your points. These are my edits: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, nice work on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PM. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sources all appear to be of high quality and reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikki. Appreciate you taking a look. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild edit

  • "without seeing active service as a formed body, although some of its former units saw action later with other formations" A picky point - I am not sure what "as a formed body" adds.
  • "to enable the formation of a self-contained Australian corps along with the four infantry divisions that previously been formed" Suggest "along with" → 'consisting of'; and adding 'had' after "that".
  • "officer on the Western Front during World War I" Optional: add ', both' after "Front".
  • "The assigned regiments were" Suggest 'The regiments assigned to the brigade were'.
  • "although he was replaced by Brigadier Denzil Macarthur-Onslow in July" Optional: delete "although", use a semi colon.
    • Reworked -- the semi colon seemed a bit abrupt so I reworded it a bit further. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used to form part of the 2/4th Armoured Regiment, and was assigned to the 2nd Armoured Brigade" "and" → 'which'.
  • "and become a direct command unit of III Corps." I am not sure that "direct command unit" communicates well to the lay reader; is there a clearer way of expressing it?
  • Nimmo's two periods of command are treated differently to Macarthur-Onslow's.

An excellent article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: G'day, Gog, thank you for taking a look. I think I've addressed all of your comments. These are my changes: [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5 edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • service in the Middle East, following Japan's Link both Middle East and pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan's article.
  • re-raised in the post war period Not sure or Australians use post war, post-war or even postwar?
    • Pretty sure we use all three (we are nothing if not flexible), but taking the first two books on my bookshelf (Grey's A Military History of Australia and Dennis' Oxford Companion) it seems they use "postwar" so I've changed it to that. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I know I'd almost say you Australians write a mix between American and British spellings. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • was no need for large scale armoured Do you Australians not use large-scale?
  • armoured brigade headquarters unnecessary You mean unnecessarily?
    • No, I think unnecessary works here. For instance, "it was rendered unnecessary", as opposed to "it became unnecessarily something". AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • brigade were also effected by the change You mean affected?
    • Done. I can never get the difference between effect/affect right in my mind. 08:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • the east coast, moving to Sydney Unlink Sydney because of common term.
    • Done
  • In the post war period Same as comment two of mine.

That's anything from me an excellent article I'd say. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I saw this nomination and I saw you nominated it. So, I thought "it's awhile when I saw an AR's nomination" plus you needed one reviewer so I wanted to help any nomination here. I decided to have a review on it. But your edits look great in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps edit

  • Suggest linking Middle East because it is somewhat ambiguous. In areas where the term Near East is still used, the Middle East is somewhere entirely different.
  • Do Australians not hyphenate co-operation?
    • We have in the past, and that was how I was taught, but I believe less so now. My Macquarie Australian Dictionary doesn't, so I went with "cooperation". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps link cavalry.
  • It had initially been planned to raise a new 2nd AIF infantry battalion – the 2/34th – as a motorised unit, but instead... Initially, it had been planned that the brigade would deploy to the Middle East in early 1942 Just because I find the repetition clumsy, can we say for the second part, "In early 1942 the brigade was to be sent to the Middle East but...." Or something similar?
  • ...was formed from the brigade to deploy to Malaya around this time, but this deployment was also cancelled.... If we can just say, "...but this was also cancelled", we can avoid the repetition of 'deployment' here.
  • In January 1943, Nimmo resumed command of the brigade, taking over from Macarthur-Onslow. What about saying, "In January 1943, Nimmo resumed command, taking over from Macarthur-Onslow", to be slightly less wordy?
  • As the tide of war in the Pacific turned in favour of the Allies, the threat of invasion passed and the Australian government decided to reallocate some of the manpower that had been tied up in the armoured divisions to other formations that would be utilised for jungle warfare, or to civilian industry. Seems an awfully long sentence. Consider splitting in two. Also, If I’m understanding it correctly, I would say that the ‘to’ in ‘to civillian industry’, isn’t required
    • Yes, this is a fair point -- blame my liberal arts education ;-) Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1st Armoured Division was retained in Western Australia, though, and in June Brigadier Frank Wells assumed command of the brigade. I would say there ought to be a comma after June (although my comma usage isn’t perfect).
    • Adjusted to mention the date at the end I was was concerned about placing too many commas so close together. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...was placed under the command of Macarthur-Onslow, who had previously commanded it during the war What about, "under the command of Macarthur-Onslow, who had held the post during the war"?
  • ...with small numbers of Centurion main battle tanks which were issued on a training scale. What’s a training scale?
    • Essentially such a small number that they are only used for training, rather than regular operations. Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brigade ceased to exist in September 1957, following an Army reorganisation based on a reassessment of the role of armour which resulted in a focus upon infantry support in jungle conditions which rendered armoured brigade headquarters unnecessary. Might benefit from being split into two sentences.
  • At this time, some armoured headquarters staff were retained underneath the Brigadier, Royal Australian Armoured Corps cell that was established within both Southern and Eastern Commands to provide a cadre with which to form a brigade headquarters in an emergency, but this was about half of the 105 personnel that had previously undertaken the role, and was abolished in 1960. Another long sentence which might be easier to understand if it were two.

An interesting article. I hope my suggestions have helped.--Ykraps (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ykraps: Yes, very helpful. Thank you. These are my changes: [4]. Please let me know if you are happy with those changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Adding my support.--Ykraps (talk) 15:48, 23 July 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/1st_Armoured_Brigade_(Australia)&oldid=907644613"