Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/3rd Division (Australia)

3rd Division (Australia)

I am requesting that this article be peer reviewed as I would like to see what it might require to take it up to GA status. Also, I freely admit to writing this one quickly, so I feel it needs a few pairs of eyes to find typos and grammatical errors (for which I humbly apologise in advance). Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farawayman

I have restricted my comments to the WWI part only. Some observations:

Possibly add: 24 / 25 March 1918 - Division was moved from R&R first to Doullens under command of X Corps and then later placed under Congreve's VII Corps command at Amiens.
- I've found mention of VII Corps but not X Corps in my source, so I will try to find it elsewhere, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider: 30 March: 11 Bde: ".....Australian commander estimating German losses to be in the "thousands" - Monash says 3,000.
- Thanks, what are the details of Monash's book - I will try to see if I can get it from the library? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Monash, John Lt-Gen, Sir (1993) [1st. pub. 1920: Hutchinson & Co, London]. The Australian Victories in France in 1918. Imperial War Museum in association with Battery Press. ISBN 9780901627964.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    - Thanks, I'll see if I can get hold of it. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider: 28 March: 3 Div lost 9th Bde to 61st Div and on 29th March received 15th Bde to replace the 9th Bde.
Possibly add sub-heading for 8 August actions: "Battle of Amiens," as this and Passchendaele Ridge can be considered to be the most important actions the Division was involved in WWI. Adding further sub-headings in the WWI section based on specific known actions or places could make the long section more readable.
- Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider: 8 August: "...the attack was very successful and the division achieved all of its objectives." They apparently reached their first phase objectives by 7am! (Zero-Hour was 04:20)
Consider: ".... Throughout the rest of August, they continued offensive operations.." I think the 3rd Div were relieved on 13 Aug by 17th Div and went into Corps Reserve. It appears that they were only brought forward again on about 20 or 21 August.
- My source doesn't mention this, so I will need to see if I can find it somewhere else. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider: Action at "St Quentin Canal" - possibly mention that it was the US 27th Div that "messed up"
- Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After the St Quentin Canal action, Monash says "....it was impossible to call on the 3rd and 5th Div's for any further effort... their work had been most exhausting ... after 60 days of continuous battle... reduced fighting strength... that a very drastic re-organisation had become necessary. This could only be effected by a complete withdrawal from the fighting zone." So I think we can deduce that their WWI commitment ended on 2 Oct 1918.
- The source I have says that elements of division's artillery were involved in further actions after 2 October 1918 in support of the Americans. They fired their last shot of the war on 4 November 1918. I will try to clarify this. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try adding a second definitive source for the WWI section, only relying on Palazzo could be perceived as not giving a balanced view. Interesting history of a solid WWI formation; and well written! Farawayman (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's a fair call. Will have to work on it. Over the holidays I hope to spend a bit of time at the State Library, and with luck might be able to find a few more relevant sources. Unfortunately the SLQ don't allow anyone to borrow the books, which makes life harder. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your comments, they are all good suggestions. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey

Fixed the refs fmts
- Thanks, apologies for that. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the locns do you think Melbourne etc, need Victoria after them for consistency?
- Added them in. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of commanders, I don't think Sir should be listed for Wooden and the one after him as they were apparently knighted after they moved on, and Wooden's article claims he was knighted for non-military stuff as well YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tweaked the list just to display the titles as per how they are displayed in the source. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your comments and edits. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose

Only given the article a cursory read but I can make the following comments:

The overall length/detail seems sufficient to me not simply for GAN but also for ACR.
The length of the main body however seems to dictate a bigger lead -- at least two, perhaps three paragraphs in total.
- Thanks, I will try to expand a bit by providing some more specific information about battles, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related to Farawayman's point, why not make use of the Official History of Australia in the Great War? By the same token, the Second World War Official History probably also deserves a look-in.
- Yes, that's a fair point. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minor: you don't need to link the same rank for every CO in the list -- the first instance of each is plenty.
- Fixed. Apologies for this, I forgot to remove those when I overwrote the article. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I get the chance I'll have a closer look and perhaps copyedit but hopefully the above will be useful for the moment. Good effort as usual...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Ian. I hope you will take a crack at the copy edit, as it probably needs it. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

As usual for your work AR, this article is now of the highest quality. My comments and suggestions are:

It seems a bit confusing to say that the division existed between 1916 and 1991 in the second sentence given that the rest of lead discusses it being disbanded on three occasions.
- I've tweaked the wording a little, do you think it reads more clearly now?
The chronology in the first para of the 'Formation and training' section is a bit unclear - it implies that the decision to form a '3rd Division' was made after the decision to raise units designated the '4th' and '5th' divisions - is this correct?
- Yes, this does (confusingly) seem to be the case from my reading. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth providing some brief background on Monash the first time he's mentioned
In the second para of the 'Battle of Amiens, 1918' section it should be noted that battalions of other divisions were also disbanded. It might be worth noting (if you can find a source that says this!) that reducing the Australian brigades to three battalions would bring them in line with the British divisions they were serving alongside and that many of the battalions were grossly under-strength and battalions only in name anyway.
- Yes, that's a good suggestion. I know I've read this somewhere. I will have to go back through my books and see if I can find a ref for it somewhere. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems a bit unduly focused on the division's infantry component - there's little coverage of it's artillery for instance. David Horner's book The Gunners may have useful material on this topic if you can find a copy (if not please let me know - I should be able to borrow it from a local library)
- Yes, that's a fair call. Probably reflects the sourcing, which is rather inf-centric, but I think I can get access to Horner's book. Might see if I can find more on the engineers too. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting that the other CMF division (the 2nd) was disbanded during the Pentropic experiment but later re-raised (though I'm not sure when) Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Palazzo 2001 probably has this, or Kuring 2004 might. A mate has these, so I will see if I can dig something out of them on the weekend. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Nick, these excellent comments/suggestions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]