Just made a correction re the VCs awarded to men of the 3rd Div: They were not reservists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Without wanting to start a whole Reservist-ARA debate here, I do not believe this comment to be strictly accurate. Both Corporal Reginald Roy Rattey and Private Frank Partridge were in the Militia, which in actual fact does make them Reservists. Reg Rattey was in the pre war CMF and then transferred to the AIF, although he remained serving in a Militia battalion. Patridge served in the Volunteer Defence Corps and was then conscripted into the Milita. The original clause in the article, which was removed, stated that these two men were the only two Reservists to have earned the VC. This is actually technically accurate, although I do not feel that the comment necessarily needs to be in the article as it does not really add anything to it. One final point, though - almost none, if not in fact none, of the VCs earned by Australian Army personnel prior to the Vietnam War, were earned by Regular Army soldiers. The point is moot, though, because the ARA did not exist until after WWII, and as such prior to that all infantry soldiers were either Reservists (be they volunteers or conscripts), or members of the AIF (who were not Regular soldiers, but rather either Reservists who'd volunteered twice (to join up and to go overseas), or just people straight from civvie street who'd also volunteered twice. Thus the whole debate really makes no sense whatsoever - what does it matter what terms of service they were under when they performed the acts they did? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: —Ed!(talk) 15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
"it has the distinction of being the longest serving Australian Army division." - sounds a little editorialized. Could you word it to be more neutral?
I'm not sure about this, it is actually a direct quote from the source. I've added the quotation marks. I'm open to rewording it, but can't think of how to do it without changing the meaning. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the word "distinction," see how it looks. My concern is that by using that word the article implies serving is a "distinction." —Ed!(talk) 20:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
World War II, Home duties section: "Major General Stanley Savige, an experienced officer who had commanded at brigade level in the Middle East, took over command of the division" - did he command a brigade in combat? What was the contingency and why was he commanding in the Middle East? Needs a little context.
I've clarified this now. Please let me know if this is okay AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Next section: "the division received reinforcements in June in the shape of the US 162nd Infantry Regiment." - sounds a little unencyclopedic.
I've added a few individual VCs that are mentioned in the texts, but there doesn't appear to be a comprehensive list that I can find. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I would also suggest putting some info in about anyone notable who fought as a member of the division...VC winners, future generals, otherwise notable people, etc. Surely plenty of notable Australians were a part of the unit during its existence.
I've added a couple of VC recipients, but to be honest I'm not sure about this one, there doesn't appear to be list of notable members in the divisional history, so I'm not sure how to go about working out who should be mentioned. Ultimately, though, I think we need to be careful only to mention those that are notable for their service as part of the division, otherwise it could go too far. Not sure if this adequately answers your question, though, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)