Talk:18th Battalion (New Zealand)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I will review this article for GA status and will post a review over the next day or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comments
-
- G'day, I've done some copy editing, please check that you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit. I believe that this article is in quite good shape and is very close to GA status. As part of this review, I have a few comments/suggestions/queries. Please let me know if you disagree with any comments. Happy to discuss further: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- the Earwig tool reports no copyright violations: [1] (no action required)
- do we know the exact date of when the battalion was raised? Currently the article only says "1939"
- Clarified that it was formed in Sept.
- do we know exactly where in New Zealand that the battalion completed its training? For instance, did they concentrate at a particular barracks or base?
- Added this info.
- were the battalion's personnel all volunteers or conscripts?
- Clarified that they were volunteers.
- do we know what battle honours the battalion was awarded? This website might be a useful resource: [2]
- do any current units perpetuate this one, or its battle honours? (see the above link)
- Have added this information and cited to the link you found.
- are there any images that could be added to the early part of the article to break up the text?
- Have added a couple.
- the disbanded date appears in the infobox but not in the body of the text, and therefore appears uncited. I suggest just adding it to the body
- Have tweaked infobox.
- in the lead, "...under the command of Lieutenant Colonel J. R. Gray" is probably unnecessary detail
- Deleted.
- instead of initials, where known can you please include the full names of personnel mentioned?
- Done where possible for the main text; did you want this for the list of commanders as well?
- G'day, if possible, I think that would be best. It's not a warstoper, though, so I will leave it up to you to decide in your leisure. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Done where possible for the main text; did you want this for the list of commanders as well?
- there appear to be quite a few missing definate articles. For instance, "...from 5th Infantry Brigade..." probably should be "...from the 5th Infantry Brigade..." (etc.)
- Gone through to deal with these.
- the sentence beginning "Withdrawn to the Alamein line after a brief period..." is a very complex sentence and would probably flow better if it was split somehow
- Should be good now.
- "it had been decided", per WP:Checklist it is best to avoid using these constructions...
- Rephrased the two instances this appears.
- the first sentence of the Crete section doesn't seem relevant to the article on the 18th Battalion and I'd suggest that it could probably be removed without impacting on the article
- Deleted.
- "File:Tanks of 18 Armoured" might need a more specific date than "1944/45" given that 1944 seems to be the key date for the copyright to be expired
- For this image, I believe Category A (photographer unidentified) applies. That said, after doublchecking it, I think the photo is more likely to have been taken in 1945.
- Good point, sorry I missed the "unidentified photographer" phrase. I agree. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- For this image, I believe Category A (photographer unidentified) applies. That said, after doublchecking it, I think the photo is more likely to have been taken in 1945.
- "File:18 Armoured Regiment (NZ) Sherman" currently has a date of "1945", but the way I read the NZ licence, to be PD Crown images need to be published in 1944 or before. Is that your interpretation?
- As above, I believe Category A applies to this one. However, if it was taken by an official photographer (and the source website is usually pretty good at indicating if the photo was taken by an official photographer) in 1945 it wouldn't be PD.
- Ack, as above. Thanks for clarifying. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- As above, I believe Category A applies to this one. However, if it was taken by an official photographer (and the source website is usually pretty good at indicating if the photo was taken by an official photographer) in 1945 it wouldn't be PD.
- "File:18 Armoured Regiment (NZ) Sherman" would probably look better if the black strip at the bottom were cropped off
- Done.
- Thanks for the review AR, article has been amended as per your feedback, plus a few comments above as well. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, fantastic work. I look forward to reading more about NZ infantry battalions in the future! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Criteria
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
- I believe that this article meets the GA criteria. Well done and good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)