Talk:Second Fleet (Australia)

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Maritime Low‑importance

	Australia portal Second Fleet (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Rating[edit]

Rated as start, needs to be checked to upgrabe to B Pustelnik (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-contemporary reference problem[edit]

I refer to reference 2. "Our Austral.". The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1956) (Melbourne, Vic.: National Library of Australia). 27 January 1940. p. 8 Supplement: The Argus Weekend magazine. Retrieved 27 January 2012.

The Argus does not reference its article, so the information presented can only be taken on face value. A more contemporary source for the same information seems required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookly (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]