Talk:56th Independent Mixed Brigade/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs)

I will review this article for GA. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, I have a few suggestions. Not sure if the sources exist to answer some of my questions below...if not, no worries. Anyway, these are my suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• with six infantry battalions and artillery, engineers, signals with a major general in command it seems that the independent mixed brigades were more like division minuses. I wonder if it would be possible to mention something about the reasoning behind this? Do the sources say?
  • That's a really good question - I've added a short para in the notes on this. Basically IMBs were second or third-tier units which ended up in front line combat as the Japanese Army had nothing better to use. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• do we know roughly how many personnel the brigade had?
  • 8,000 - added Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• do we know if the brigade's personnel were conscripts or regulars?
  • Unfortunately the sources don't say. I'm pretty sure that almost all Japanese units by this stage of the war were conscript-based Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• where in Japan did the brigade's constituent units form, and embark?
  • The sources don't specify where they embarked. The combat units were formed after arrival in Borneo. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• capitalisation: " 54th, 55th, 56th, 57th and 58th independent mixed brigades..." --> " 54th, 55th, 56th, 57th and 58th Independent Mixed Brigades..."?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• " the survivors of the 56th Independent Mixed Brigade were concentrated in locations selected by the Australian forces" --> I assume that they were eventually returned to Japan, can something along these lines be added?
  • The sources don't say what happened to them, though this is doubtlessly correct. However a lot of Japanese POWs died of disease after the general surrender (due to their poor physical condition prior to this time), and I fear that this brigade would have continued to suffer heavy losses given the terrible experiences its personnel were put through. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• the lead says the brigade was disbanded after the war, but the body doesn't mention this
  • I've tweaked this to match the source. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• " Southern Expeditionary Army Group" appears to be overlinked
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• the link for the 20th Brigade seems to point to the 24th Brigade
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, Pratten should appear before Rottman for alphabetical order
  • Oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: G'day, Nick, not sure if you have seen my comments or not. For some reason the bot doesn't seem to be recognizing this review so it probably hasn't sent you the usual notification. Apologies if I muffed it somehow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your very through review. I did miss this as the alert didn't trigger and I didn't spot your edits as I was out of town on the weekend. I think that I've now addressed your comments to the extent possible given the relatively light availability of sources on this unit. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
      • No worries, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• 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':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail: