"Helliopolis": I'm not seeing relevant Google hits for that spelling.
"into "no man's land".": You use this phrase before this without quote marks.
I got down to Inter-war years. I don't see a problem with launching an A-class review. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
G'day, Dank, thanks for taking a look. I've made those changes. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Took over where Dan left off -- outstanding points:
Under Interwar Years, "Upon re-forming, the battalion established its drill hall near the Brisbane Cricket Ground" is a bit ambiguous since we've just talked about a split in 1939 -- best state explicitly the re-forming battalion's name.
Under WWII, "the battalion sent a detachment of 200 men to undertake garrison duty in New Guinea" -- more specific about where, or the political entity of the time (e.g. Territory of Papua)? This becomes more important given you pipelink New Guinea to the New Guinea Campaign later.
Good point. I changed this to "Territory of Papua". AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"In late 1941, as Japan entered the war, the battalion received several large drafts of conscripts" -- seems a bit vague and hard to fathom; since Japan entered the war on 7 December, does this mean the several large drafts occurred over the next 24 days?
I tried to clarify this a bit more, as it wasn't quite right what I had before. The three mass drafts arrived Nov-Dec 41 according to Park. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"free up troops from the 7th Division for further to the west" -- something missing here?
Yes, well spotted. I added a link to the following campaign. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Under Legacy, suggest spelling out and linking the decorations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about this one, as I'd already linked several of them in the First World War section and didn't want to over-link. I spelt out MIDs and added a link for that, though, as I hadn't previously done so. I really appreciate you taking a look on this one, Ian; if you have any further points or feel I haven't quite met your intent, please let me know. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Quite right, I was looking too far up the article to see if they were spelt out and linked -- what you've done is fine. I think the article's in good shape, looking fwd to the ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)