Talk:29th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (

   lists

   ):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to

   reliable sources): c (OR

   ):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have

   suitable captions

   ):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• No disamb link need attention
• External links all check ok
• Should it not be HMAT Ascanius and HMAT Tunisian (His Majesty's Australian Transport)
  • My understanding is that Ascanius bore the title HMAT, but Tunisian bore the title HMT. I've added them now. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Bit picky here but - protect the Suez Canal from Turkish forces / Ottoman forces - our article Turkey says the state was established on September 18, 1922.
  • Fair call. I've adjusted it to Ottoman. IMO, Australians at the time largely used the term "Turk/isk". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we know why the junior battalion took precedence when forming the 29th/22nd Battalion?
  • Good question, Jim, but unfortunately nothing I've read so far clarifies this. My understanding, based on anecdotal evidence (which obviously can't be added), is that it might have been based upon which battalion maintained the headquarters. For instance, with the 29th and 22nd, when they were amalgamated I think that the 29th Bn HQ became the 29th/22nd Bn HQ, while 22nd Bn HQ was folded (with the 29th's CO becoming the 29th/22nd's CO). It might also have something to do with which battalion had a larger share of the recruit base upon formation. In the case of the 55th/53rd Battalion (Australia), there has been some talk that it was done simply out of spite due to the 53rd Bn's perceived "poor performance". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• In the battle honours section Bapaume 1917 is not linked but I am unable to find anything matching in 1917 but two possibles in 1918. Is 1917 a typo ?

It would seem to be for this [1] but I can not find a corresponding battle or article

• • I think you are right. I have also looked for an article to link to, but haven't been able to find it. I've red linked it for now. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

Well done as normal, I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim, thank you for the review. I think I've fixed or responded to everything. If I've missed something, please let me know. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]