Wikipedia:Peer review/Australian Defence Force/archive1

Australian Defence Force

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been a FA since 2007, and has been periodically updated. It's now due for another update to take into account the new defence white paper, the 2013-14 budget and various smaller changes. I'd appreciate comments on the article's current material (including anything which should be cut), and new material which should be added. Other editors are very welcome to work on the article as well, of course. Thanks in advance for your comments, Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, Nick, good idea to give this one a peer review. I have a few points to get started, although they are mainly just style/presentation points:
  • quotation marks: you seem to use single, where I think the MOS prefers double, e.g. 'tri-service', 'forward defence', 'joint' warfare, 'Strategic Reform Program', etc.
  • capitalisation: "Australian Military" --> this doesn't seem correct to me as it implies that it is a proper noun;
  • "submitted a report to the Government" (the link here at Government probably could be removed);
  • " Approximately 400 of these personnel": I think it is a bit more now [1];
  • "Detachments of two maritime patrol aircraft". I could be wrong, but I think the Orions have completed ops...[2]
  • this should be updated: "The only positions which women are currently excluded from are those in which there is a high probability of 'direct combat', which includes all infantry positions and other positions in which there is a high probability of hand to hand combat";
  • same as above: "it is planned that this remaining restriction will be removed in 2014 once the physical standards required for service in these units are determined";
  • this needs updating: "Personnel from the Army's 16th Air Defence Regiment" (16 AD has been renamed 16 Air Land Regiment);
  • in the Australian Army section: "currently being 'hardened and networked"... I don't think this applies any more. (It is being "Beersheba'ed" now... ;-)
  • this seems awkward: "unrepresentative of Australia's society in this regards" --> "in this regard" perhaps?
  • inconsistent caps: "the government" and "the Government";
  • "The RAN operates 74 vessels of all size"...this number might be out of date.
  • this paragraph seems uncited: "The RAAF has modern combat and transport aircraft and a network of bases in strategic locations across Australia."
  • "36 155 mm towed M198 howitzers" --> "thirty-six 155 mm towed M198 howitzers"?;
  • the "East Timor and after" section could possibly include discussion of the rotation of regular Army forces through both Iraq and Afghanistan in the various roles that are no longer undertaken (e.g. SECDET, AMTG, OWBG, RTF, MTF, etc...)
  • the "Current expenditure" section probably should be updated to discussion the recent budget and the political debate probably could be reduced in weight;
  • a few of the notes appear to be deadlinks; I wonder if archive links could be added;
  • Notes 143, 144 and 145 could be formatted to be consistent with others (such as 136 and 137);
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports a few examples of overlinked terms: East Timor, Operation Astute, Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands, Fiji, failed states, etc...
  • there appears to be an ISBN error for "Organising and Dispatching the ADF's Expeditionary Force for the War in Iraq" (in the Reference list);
  • title case: "Australian domestic security: The role of Defence" --> "Australian Domestic Security: The Role of Defence"?
  • same as above: " War and Profit: Doing business on the battlefield".
  • Anyway, I hope these help. Good luck and thanks for taking on such a high profile topic. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for those excellent comments - I really appreciate them. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)