Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Australian contribution to UNTAG

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian contribution to UNTAG

[edit]
Nominator(s): AWHS (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I was one of the 600 Australian soldiers who spent six months of our lives in Namibia in 1989 and 1990. With the benefit of hindsight we did a great job and helped to bring peace to a small war-torn african country. It was one of the greatest wins the UN has ever had and I wanted to tell the story well. AWHS (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has just received a very good GA Review here Talk:Australian_contribution_to_UNTAG/GA1 with favourable comments.AWHS (talk)

Support Comments: fascinating article. I have no doubt that with a little bit more work it can be an A-class article. COI disclaimer, I am a former member of 14 Troop/7 Field Squadron (many years after this event, though). Content-wise I think that the article is very comprehensive, so I had a look over the article more from a style point of view. In this regard, there are a few things that I think need work, although these are mainly minor issues. I won't list them all, but will list a number of examples for you to use to then go back through the article yourself:

  • you might consider using a table of contents limiter. This can be done by adding the following mark up code "{{TOC limit}}" in the lead;
I have edited the headings so that this is not necessary, I cut out several.
  • in the Background section, is it necessary to break up the paragraphs with multiple main article templates? It might be more beneficial to either move them all up to the top of the section, or just embed the links as normal in the paragraph itself;
 Done. Fixed. I have cut out all except one, but added sub-headings.
  • "It is notable that after leaving government Mr Fraser" --> "It is notable that after leaving government Fraser";
 Done. Fixed
  • irregular capitalisation: "successful deployment of over 600 Engineers" --> "successful deployment of over 600 engineers" (improper noun here);
 Done. Fixed and all similar
  • inconsistent style "World War 2" v "World War II";
 Done. Fixed to make this consistent
  • capitalisation in headings should be sentence case, not title case unless proper nouns are used. For instance "The First 10 Years" should be "The first 10 years";
 Done. Fixed everywhere
  • inconsistent: "Australian Contingent" v. "Australian contingent";
 Done. Fixed, I have gone lower-case everywhere except for full title 'Australian Service Contingent', this is consistent with the official history
  • in some places you use single quotation marks and in others you use double. My understanding is that the MOS prefers double;
 Done. Fixed everywhere
  • in some places you use italics to denote a quote; this should probably be changed to double quotation marks without the italics;
 Done. Fixed everywheere
  • "included Second-in-command" --> "included second-in-command";
 Done. Fixed
  • newspaper titles should be presented in italics, e.g. "The Canberra Times" should be The Canberra Times;
 Done. Fixed
  • same as above for book titles, e.g. "Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations" --> Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations;
 Done. Fixed
  • inconsistent caps: "the Resources troop" v. "the Plant Troop";
 Done. Fixed
  • inconsistent presentation: "14 Field Troop" v "14th Field Troop"
 Done. Fixed
  • inconsistent presentation of figures, for instance "60" but the "seventy-five" etc.
 Done. Fixed
  • "the Australian army military monitors" --> "Australian Army monitors";
 Done. Fixed. I changed to Australian military electoral monitors (or monitors) throughout to be consistent with the Official History
  • run on sentence: "During the deployment there were very few issues, one issue ..."
 Done. Fixed by rewording.
  • the Citations seem to use a mixture of styles. For instance compare # 5, 6 and 19 to 1-4 and others;
Working on this, taking quite a lot of effort to harmonise the different styles of citations. I have discovered that some are incompatible. I am using the "sfn" format which seems the most appropriate.
 Done. Finished, this was harder than I expected and took a while, the citation style is now uniform throughout.
  • in the Sources section, "Arlene Getz" probably should be "Getz, Arlene" for consistency of style;
 Done. Fixed in several places by using the first, last sfn citation template

Thanks very much: Will get into this tonight. Great comments, all of them.AWHS (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. All fixed - ready for another review.AWHS (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Max, the article looks great. I think the prose needs a little more work, though, so I will try to go through it over the next couple of days. I've made a few edits this evening, so please check you are happy with those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, love your work. Very appreciative of your edits and assistance with prose (I am an engineer). AWHS (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Fixed. Thanks enormously for your edits which are very good.
No worries, it is a very interesting article; thanks for your work on it. I've added my support for promotion to A class. If you are considering taking this to WP:FAC, I'd suggest listing it for a copy edit at WP:GOCE, though, as I may have missed something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: G'day Max. A few from me.

  • In the lead, you seem to quote John Crocker without actually quoting him. The last part of the sentence is in the present tense.
 Done. I have added double quotation marks around the section and checked against the source to check that it is letter perfect.
  • Probably worth mentioning in the lead that the overall mission sustained 19? casualties to place the lack of Aust casualties in context.
 Done. This was in Horner p 137
  • "Overall, the UNTAG mission successfully assisted Namibia to become a democracy without the racial segregation of the apartheid system" - I think you need to make this clear, they assisted them without the apartheid system? Maybe "Overall, the UNTAG mission assisted Namibia to transition to democratic government after the racial segregation of the apartheid system" Not sure what you want to say here.
 Done. Exactly what you suggested. Chopped the rest out.
  • I believe Mays (published in 2011) says it WAS possibly the most successful peacekeeping operation ever fielded, so not just at the time. The two references (I haven't got access to Horner right now) are published in 2011, so not just at the time I'm thinking.
 Done. I have added double quotation marks around what Mays said in the introduction (available online), and also added an exact reference and quote from Horner in the lead (page 142).
  • introduce UN in parentheses after its first mention as United Nations, and use UN from then on
 Done. Changed United Nations to UN everywhere except quotes. I have changed other UN terms as well, there are quite a few e.g. United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, Secretary-General of the United Nations and various resolutions etc.
  • insurgent/ counter-insurgent → insurgent/counter-insurgent
 Done.
  • SADF is introduced in the body with being done in full and without a link (needs moving up from following para)
 Done.
  • "the" South African Border War
 Done.
 Done.
  • Namibian War of Independence is a duplicate link
 Done.
  • at PLAN bases → against PLAN bases
 Done.
  • "political activation" or political activism?
 Done. However impossible to check against the source online, only a 'snipped' view is available online. This makes sense.
 Done.
  • "raiding white settlements and disrupting essential services" or raids on white settlements and disruption to essential services
 Done. Exactly as you suggested.
  • it's a stylistic issue, but Soviet Union and "Soviet" works for me, people know who you are on about
 Done. Makes sense.
  • once the acronym is introduced, use FAPLA
 Done.
  • you can drop "the" from "to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 602"
 Done.
  • the forces breakdown would work better in a table
 Done. I have used part of a campaign box with just the flag icons, names and strength, this seems to be the best way of illustrating this information since it is done at a point in time.
  • "Resolution 2145 (XXI) which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 27 October 1966" or UN General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966
 Done. I have tweaked the refs for this para.
  • "with the mission to assist" → with a mission to assist, or with the mission of assisting
 Done. I have changed this to include a quote from the actual resolution rather than a summary.
  • Namibian Independence doesn't need a capital I
 Done.
  • when you introduce the Special Rep, perhaps add who it was.
 Done. I have added him to the lead and linked him there Martti Ahtisaari
  • The vote we abstained from, and the one we voted yes for, were they SC or GA?
Don't know the answer to this, hansard does not say. This is the hansard reference http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22hansard80%2Fhansardr80%2F1961-04-11%2F0137%22
Australia was not part of the SC at the time, so it must logically have been the GA.
I recall reading an article on trove that led me to this, will try and track it down again. At the time I was not as structured, and only captured the best sources.
Cannot locate a source for voting on the UN website, but Hansard is a notable source
  • while a non-permanent member of part of the UN Security Council
 Done.
 Done.
  • the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser → Prime Minister Fraser
 Done.
  • "Malcolm Fraser" should be just "Fraser" after introducing him
 Done.
  • who are Peacock (Foreign Affairs) and Killen (Defence)(most wouldn't)
 Done.
  • row or argument?
 Done. I have kept row as per the quote, checked the source which says "row" on page 63 of Horner (who also uses quotes), added quotes around these few words as emphasis
  • from 1983 (followed the) Fraser → continuing the policy of? and delete "before them"
 Done. Minor tweak
  • Should Official History be in italics?
 Done.
  • "commitment was unusual" → commitment was "unusual"
 Done.
  • you introduce Hawke by surname then give it in full, I suggest you reverse that
 Done.
Someone beat me to this, fixed.
  • for people of South Africa and Namibia. Some humanitarian assistance has also been provided, suggest "for the people of South Africa and Namibia. Some humanitarian assistance had also been provided"
 Done.
  • the Officer Commanding → the Officers Commanding
 Done.
  • suggest - Horner described it as "an extremely complex mission" in the Official History → In the Official History, Horner described it as "an extremely complex mission".
 Done.
  • that all hostile acts were endedceased
 Done. I copied the ref here verbatim, but I agree that this reads better.
  • order was impartially maintained
 Done.
  • suggest deleting "to support Operation Safe Passage" here and mentio it later. Just saying they had to deploy as infantry is enough at this point
 Done.
  • The Prime Minister of Australia said → Prime Minister Fraser
 Done. But it was Hawke not Fraser
  • not sure why Australian Liaison Office is italicised
 Done.
  • Headquarters, delete unit
 Done.
  • "Australia asking Australia to reconfirm its previous commitment" needs work, two Australia's, reconfirm previous commitment
 Done. Horner says "reconfirmed its commitment" on page 76. Hansard was less specific. I have tweaked this http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1989-03-06%2F0025%22
  • some reservations
 Done.
  • white space in front of fn68
 Done.
  • not sure about the italicisation of "Plan" and "Operation" see MOS:TEXT
not sure either, I have checked a few featured articles and they are not consistent either, e.g. Operation Camargue which is a FA uses Operation Camargue (in at least one place) and Operation Uranus uses Operation Uranus throughout. I cannot find a suitable reference either way. Happy to change this if you think there is a better way?
  • link United Nations Headquarters
 Done.
  • specify and link CGS (and name him)
 Done.
  • Sydney-based
 Done.
  • soldiers needs a terminal apostrophy
 Done.
  • replace "The Australian Liaison Officer to the UNHQ" with "Hutchings"
 Done.
 Done.
 Done.
  • Major Hutchings
 Done.
  • link Grootfontein at first mention
 Done.
  • link Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
 Done.
  • Holsworthy Barracks has a duplicate link, as do Bob Hawke and Prime Minister of Australia
 Done. I had left them in for the sources for the quotes, but have now removed them
  • link Boeing 707
 Done.
  • suggest "aircraft fromof the"
 Done.
  • link all ranks (for Hutchings, Alexander etc) on first use
 Done.
 Done.
  • you use PLAN and SWAPO interchangeably, I suggest all military references use PLAN, and political ones use SWAPO
Complicated, I have typically used the term used in the original source; PLAN in the history section, then PLAN bases, PLAN insurgents, PLAN soldiers, PLAN combatants, PLAN members, PLAN forces, etc. But for example Bob Hawke quoted "members of SWAPO" and Sitkowski talks about SWAPO infiltration, and almost all of the newspapers at the time talked about SWAPO casualties; SWAPO injuries, SWAPO returnees. Horner also talks about "wounded SWAPO" and "SWAPO casualties" in the Official History. I tried to reflect the original source rather than making it consistent. My thoughts are that this is less confusing. You are correct, at the time the terms were largely interchangeable.
  • drop initial caps on "Headquarters staff" and "other Security Forces"
 Done.
  • perhaps clarify that Mount Etjo is a game park outside Otjiwarongo
 Done.
  • pay any role → play any role
 Done.
  • try to dispense with uses of "however"
 Done.
  • Minister → Defence Minister, or preferably use Gration and Beazley
 Done.
  • only military units
 Done.
  • suggest consistency in explanations of who was what. Some RAE officers have RAE after their name, others have their appointment or unit. Suggest sticking to appointments. If Steve, Mark and Pat were troop commanders, say that
 Done.
  • link Ruacana, Oshikango, Oshikuku
 Done.
  • then they would be escorted across the border north to the 16th parallel to their bases of confinement. - needs tweaking, to the to their
 Done.
  • The operation wasdid not prove successful
 Done.
  • by walking out → independently
 Done.
  • survived → completed
 Done.
  • without casualty → without any casualties
 Done.
  • I suggest you attribute the ""training standards of the Australian Army and perhaps, a bit of good luck" quote to Colonel Crocker
 Done.
  • drop initial caps for "Returnees" (and I suggest you don't need the parenthesised "returnees" the section heading
 Done.
  • give UNHCR in full at first use
 Done.
  • link "Council of Churches in Namibia" at first mention
 Done.
  • suggest troop numbers should be in the form 9th, 8th etc, consistent with 17th Construction Squadron and general Commonwealth usage
 Done. This has caused some angst. Per the GA review and other review comments above, we have gone through the article and removed almost all references to "th" from troops etc. The actual citation where General Morrison calls the unit "17 Construction Squadron" I took to be the modern norm. However I have now gone back and changed this everywhere except in the actual text of the citation:
  • ==> 17th Construction Squadron
  • ==> 8th Construction Troop
  • ==> 9th Construction Troop
  • ==> 14th Field Troop
  • ==> 15th Field Troop
  • ==> 7th Field Squadron
  • The South Africans continued to intimidate → The SADF continued attempts to intimidate the Australians
 Done.
  • been brought back → returned
 Done.
  • first contingent → ASC1 and second contingent → ASC2 (for consistency)
 Done. Tweaked. Sowry used 1ASC and 2ASC in the TIB. I can find no mention in Horner or anywhere that the abbreviation 1ASC was ever used when deployed. This is a term invented after the first contingent.
 Done. Good idea.
  • just use Angolan government (FAPLA) and rebel (UNITA)
 Done.
  • not sure why "dealing with the violence" is in scares, if it is a quote, please cite that sentence, but I don't think it needs to be in scares
 Done. This is a direct quote from Horner, p.123, I have mentioned Horner to introduce this quote
  • suggest "the unit's structure" → that unit's structure
 Done.
  • suggest "was deployed to make the first entry into a live minefield by Australian troops since the Vietnam War"
 Done.
  • Construction engineering: including... isn't a sentence, suggest you construct it the same as the other bulleted points, and change the colons to periods in all sets of bulleted points
 Done.
  • link Buffel at first use
 Done.
  • "in stabilising a hostile but not physically violent situation" ditto above comment about scare quotes
 Done. I have rewritten this one to remove the quotes
  • ASC's → ASC
 Done.
  • injury and death, and even
 Done.
  • engineering works tasks is a bit jargony, perhaps just "construction tasks"
 Done.
  • link Tsumeb, Andara, Nobel Peace Prize,
 Done.
  • Governments around the world linked the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to United Nations Peacekeepers in 1988 to the UNTAG operation. This is a quite likely, but it does need a citation to a source that actually says that
 Done. Fixed, cannot find the original reference that said this, so I tweaked the sentence, and added a citation for the Canada parliament as well.
  • fromby Lieutenant General
 Done.
  • suggest "The Australian contingent UNTAG was awarded a Chief of the General Staff Commendation. The award was presented to both contingents by Defence Minister Beazley at a parade in Holsworthy on 2 March 1990 held to honour those that had served in eleven UN and other peacekeeping operations."
 Done.
  • This was a reverse of the arrangement for all subsequent UN missions in which the senior engineer was a civilian → On all subsequent UN missions, the senior engineer was a civilian
 Done.
  • suggest remove one of the two uses of "standard" re: the M60s. Also, my recollection is that the 7.62mm L4 (Bren) was still in service as a "standard-issue" with some non-infantry units in the late 1980's, and that the GPMG was also in service as a section machinegun, so I'm not sure how "standard" the M60 was at that time.
 Done. Your recollection might be right. I only recall that it was a shock at the time for all concerned. There is no mention in the TIB. The MAG 58 was just coming into service at the time and there is some suggestion that some members of the second tour took the Mag58 but no references.
  • Early in the deployment Lieutenants Burchell and Stanner were asked by UNHCR to conduct an unarmed reconnaissance by UNHCR without weapons
 Done.
  • link Land mine
 Done.
  • of variousthe mine protected vehicles
 Done.
  • not sure what you mean by "recognised" minefields
 Done. I have removed this, it was redundant.
  • link Anti-personnel mine
 Done.
  • perimeter protection to → perimeter protection for
 Done.
  • link Anti-tank mine
 Done.
  • drop caps on Anti-tank mines
 Done.
  • link Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia
 Done.
  • explain "area search", a bit jargony, maybe just "minefield search" or similar
 Done. I simplified it.
  • Colonel John Crocker → Colonel Crocker (or just Crocker)
 Done. I simplified it.
  • offfrom the SADF
 Done.
 Done. Yes - looks exactly the same, assume this is it
  • the Grootfontein Squadron Headquarters → squadron headquarters in Grootfontein
 Done.
  • suggest moving (that did not explode) to immediately after grenade
 Done.
  • suggest "repatriation entitlements"
 Done.
  • conditions of service type
 Done.
  • who was based in Australia is self-evident but where, in Sydney?
 Done. By simplifying, not sure where he was located so I have removed the reference.
  • The purpose of quoting Nigel's letter is unclear, did he mean that he didn't agree with the upgrade or that he did?
 Done. Rejigged the introduction and added a small quote that refers
  • suggest you put the references in two columns using {{refbegin|2}}
 Done.
  • no alt text on images (not an ACR requirement)
 Done.
  • there are one or two isbns that could be converted to 13 digit per WP:ISBN (not an ACR requirement)
 Done.
  • otherwise toolbox checks are all green.
Wonderful news

Overall, an excellent article which just needs an large number of (mostly MOS) tweaking here and there. But, looking at the sources, I'm not sure about Brendan Sowry's work on a draft TIB being a reliable published source independent of the subject given he commanded the "little bears" on 2 ASC. Given he is mostly used for bare facts he is probably ok except for fn51 ("impartially"). John Crocker falls into that category too, but the only thing I would suggest for him is that the word "difficult" be removed from the sentence cited by fn43. I found this article particularly interesting as I trained and/or served with several of the officers mentioned. I'm done now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sowry made me think: the TIB was published without his name in 1995, but the draft dated 1992 had his name as author; so even though he was not mentioned in the final published version I retained his name as principal author. It was widely socialised at the time and included content from all the main participants. As you said I have only used it for bare facts, most facts are also cited elsewhere. Because it was a major work it made sense to include it. I did make an effort to cut out many of the refs to Sowry because it is not public and not as easily verified. AWHS (talk)

Thank you: Will get to these over the weekend. AWHS (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. All fixed or comments as appropriate.AWHS (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Moving to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Regards, AWHS (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [1] (no action required).
    • One dead link [2]:
      • Cuito Cuanavale revisited (info) [mg.co.za]
 Done. I have removed this link but retained the reference since it is referred to by other sources. I have added another linked source.
    • Images all have Alt Text [3] (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
    • Images are all PD or licenced and are appropriate for the article - including some very rare original photography from the deployment which are excellent additions to the database (no action required).
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action required).
    • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
    • "The Australian Services Contingent was the Australian Army contribution to the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) peacekeeping mission to Namibia." When? Maybe add the date at the end of the sentence for context?
 Done. Good idea, fixed.
    • This is a little choppy: "A total of 19 UN personnel lost their lives in Namibia. The two Australian contingents achieved their mission without sustaining any fatalities, one of the few military units in UNTAG to do so." Consider merging into one sentence, for instance: "Although a total of 19 UN personnel lost their lives in Namibia the two Australian contingents achieved their mission without sustaining any fatalities, one of the few military units in UNTAG to do so."
 Done. Exactly as you suggested
    • "some of which extended 250 km into Angola....", you might consider using the {{convert}} template for measurements (suggestion only).
 Done. As you suggested (never done that before). I have used this now in several places for all measurements.
    • "In opposition the Soviet Union financially backed an estimated two motorised infantry divisions of Cuban troops..." Why?
Complicated, in effect this was part of the cold war. The US was also involved hence the Soviet involvement.
 Done. I have made a number of changes to the Background section to explain this.
    • Overall the South Africans don't fair particularly well in this article and I'm a little concerned about this heading into dangerous territory. I do not believe that this has been done deliberately, and accept that it is probably more the result of omission than POV. I think what is needed is more context though. At a glance the casual reader might be unclear of the main reasons for South Africa's involvement but presumably the South African government foresaw some security imperative or had some ideological reason for being in Namibia and for opposing SWAPO and the various African communist / Marxist / nationalist movements. Likewise FAPLA and SWAPO seem to be presented rather one dimensionally as independence movements, while the motivations of the Soviet Union and Cuba are summarized far too simply as coming to "the defence of the besieged Angolan Army..." Presumably their motives were nowhere near so benevolent. I appreciate that no other editor has raised these concerns, and that these issues are only the background to the Australian deployment and therefore shouldn't be discussed in undue detail. Not wanting to make a big issue out of this and won't oppose on the basis of these points but I think a few additional sentences are req'd.
Good point, let me think about this. They were at the receiving end of 15 years of international criticism and condemnation from Fraser, Whitlam and Hawke. I have been more restrained than Horner in the Official History who tells some unattractive stories and there were many more.
I cannot find a single newspaper article that portrayed a positive picture of SA involvement in Namibia.
To maintain a neutral POV I have now brought in the opinion of one of the UN political authors who was fairly complimentary.
I have also made more mention of the overall cold war aspect. This was the era of Gorbachev.
I have added a quote from Hearn that details that South Africa gave their consent, "The first characteristic of peacekeeping" etc; and also added a small para at the end of the UNTAG section, also from Hearn (UN politicial staff) about SA negotiations and consent etc and linked it to the success of the overall mission.
 Done. This is now more balanced.
    • "The UN process that led to the independence of Namibia commenced with UN General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966...", would this be more simple as "The process that led to the independence of Namibia commenced with UN General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966..."? (suggestion only)
 Done.
    • Generally should not have two wikilinks side by side. "In the Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations David Horner stated that the Australian Government...", might work better as "In the Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations author David Horner stated that the Australian Government..." (suggestion only)
 Done. Exactly as you suggested.
    • Some context is probably req'd here. "...Australian Government, led by Robert Menzies had been loath to criticise South Africa during the 1950s..." Why? One assumes Cold War politics and South Africa's anti-communist foreign policy was broadly similar to Australia's. Was this the reason?
 Done.
    • In the same vein what was the reason for the govt's change of policy in the 1970s and 1980s?
Not sure what you mean here?
    • Some inconsistency in date ranges, for instance: "...while a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 1985–86." and "...campaigning for an end to apartheid in South Africa (1985–1986)."
 Done.
    • This is a little repetitive: "Bob Hawke's government's continued support of independence for Namibia from 1983 continued the policy of the Fraser and Whitlam governments." Specifically use of "continued" twice in the same sentence.
 Done. Fixed.
    • These two quotes from Hawke and Beazley are very similar, to the point that I'm not sure it really makes sense to use them both. "Just prior to the deployment Prime Minister Hawke said in Parliament that "Namibia was a very large and important commitment for Australia, comprising almost half of the Army's construction engineering capability." He went on to say that "our effort in Namibia will be the largest peacekeeping commitment in which this country has ever participated. It may also be the most difficult." The Minister for Defence, Kim Beazley, noted that "the UNTAG deployment was (by a large margin) Australia's biggest peacekeeping effort yet, and it is probably our most difficult". Perhaps remove one.
 Done. I got rid of Beazley.
    • "...because of doubts concerning their partiality...", should that be impartiality"?
 Done.
    • This seems like hyperbole: "UNTAG was a massive operation..." 8,000 troops isn't really that big and their have been numerous UN missions with considerably larger numbers deployed. Suggest something like "UNTAG was a large operation with nearly 8,000 men and women deployed to Namibia from more than 120 countries to assist the process."
 Done.
    • This is repetitive: "The role of the Australian force was very broad for an Army engineering unit. The role required..."
 Done.
    • Some inconsistency in presentation of sub-units: "which contained two construction troops (8 and 9 Troop), 14th Field Troop". Probably should by "8th and 9th Troop", or "14 Field Troop". I'm not fussed as long as its consistent (except of cse in quotations which need to be left as is).
 Done. I have gone with the use of "th" everywhere except quotations.
    • this is poorly worded: "17th Construction Squadron, associated Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (workshop)..."
 Done. tweaked
    • "...one Royal Australian Air Force officer (Flight Lieutenant Craig Forster)." Is there a reason why Forster is notable enough to be mentioned by name? As his name doesn't appear anywhere else in the article I would suggest removing it altogether. I accept that RNZE and RACMP det comds could be named given the posn's they held, but mentioning by name the solitary RAAF officer seems to be unnecessary detail.
Horner thought this was noteable and put it in the Official History. It was quite unusual. I recall that he got quite a lot of press at the time. I could add more references but am trying to reference only the main newspaper articles.
    • You use the construction "Horner wrote that..." quite a bit and seem to be using it as a form of in-text attribution; however, as you make good use of citations the source of the information is already clear to the reader. As a general rule I only use "X wrote" or "Y said" sparingly and only because of the importance / authority of the person making the statement or to indicate a specific POV or opinion held by them. As most of the information seems to be factual rather than opinion you could probably ditch most of these and I recommend doing so.
 Done.I have got rid of more than half, left the ones which are a specific POV only.
    • Repetitive: "Within two weeks the UN had written to Australia asking Australia..."
 Done.
    • "After notice was reactivated the detailed planning recommenced, essentially from scratch...", consider instead: "After notice was reactivated detailed planning recommenced, essentially from scratch." (rm "the")
 Done.
    • "In October, the CDF formally tasked the CGS...", abbrev "CGS" needs to be spelt out at first use.
 Done.
    • "The main body then deployed by Boeing 707 aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force on 14 April...", suggest "RAAF Boeing 707 aircraft" instead.
 Done.
    • "Over the next three weeks it has been estimated that 251 PLAN combatants were killed for the loss of 21 members of the SADF and other security forces....", consider instead: "It was later estimated that over the following three weeks 251 PLAN combatants were killed for the loss of 21 members of the SADF and other security forces." (suggestion only)
 Done. Exactly as you suggested
    • "Six of the assembly points (AP's)...", should be "APs" (apostrophe is possessive).
 Done.
    • "Plant troop 2IC", abbrev "2IC" needs to be spelt out".
 Done. Tweaked, on reflection the correct term was Plant Troop Officer
    • "Colonel Donaldson, the commander of the British contingent...", do we know Donaldson's first name? If so it should be added.
 Done. Found this in the official history.
    • "There were some problems reported in the north when ex-Koevoet...", who was Koevoet?
 Done. Introduced them in the background section and added a reference, mentioned now in several places.
    • "It took up duty in Namibia in between September and early October 1989...", consider more simply: "It took up duty in Namibia between September and early October 1989." (rm "in")
 Done. Tweaked
    • This paragraph is a bit repetitive: "The Australian forces returned to Australia..." (Australia), "The contingent's equipment was returned to Australia" (returned to Australia), and "The last demolition task was undertaken at Ondangwa on 25 March and the last..." (last).
 Done. rewritten and edited
    • Inconsistent presentation of "machine gun" here: "M60 machine gun which was the standard section level machinegun".
 Done. Have rewritten this as the standard section level automatic weapon to avoid repetition
    • "Early in the deployment Lieutenants Burchell and Stanner...", should just be "Burchell and Stanner", rm rank fol use at first instance per WP:SURNAME.
 Done.
    • this is stilted: "were asked by UNHCR to conduct an unarmed reconnaissance. Permission was refused...", consider instead "...were asked by UNHCR to conduct an unarmed reconnaissance but permission was refused."
 Done.
    • "the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (1RAR) battalion group deployment to Somalia during Operation Solace..." No req to abbrev 1 RAR as not used elsewhere, and "battalion group" is probably unnecessary detail given that it is not the subject of this article and could be removed (the casual reader already knows it was a battalion, and the distinction that it was a battalion group is probably irrelevant here).
 Done. Exactly as you suggested.
 Done.
    • In the references: "Morrison, David (10 August 2012). Letter from the Chief of Army to the Officers Commanding 17th Construction Squadron. Army Headquarters, Canberra. p. 2. OCA/OUT/2012/R11944295." Should this just be "Officer Commanding" not "Officers Commanding"?
 Done. This is an old habbit, seems to no longer be done.
    • Some of the newspaper articles listed in the references are missing a few bibliographic details, including publisher, place of publishing and issn.
 Done. Fixed several of them.
    • Overall, this is quite a good article and its really good to see an event like this chronicled for history here on Wikipedia. Indeed I imagine this article is now probably one of the most detailed and accessible sources about this mission available. Congratulations are definitely in order. Of course I have raised quite a few issues above which need to be dealt with, but I don't see them as being insurmountable and hope they don't seem to critical. Happy to discuss / reconsider any point you want clarified or disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: Great to hear that this is a good article. Will get started on these straight away. Excellent feedback. Horner wrote 90 pages about UNTAG in the official history (pp 53-143) which was a very good account. But you are right - his work is not accessible and requires trips to the library. Most of the news articles are not available online either (yet). Eventually they will all turn up in trove but for the next 26 years this is the most public document that exists. Regards, AWHS (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. All fixed or comments as appropriate. I have made a few fairly substantial changes, particularly in the introduction.
Those changes look good to me so I've added my support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support. This will be my first A-Class article. AWHS (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is "mid-importance" appropriate for this article, or should it be "high" on the project scale?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Australian_contribution_to_UNTAG&oldid=1075713853"