Talk:2/10th Battalion (Australia)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 04:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- Citations: The Citation Check tool reveal no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
- Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
- Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
- Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
- Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool seems to return a false possible (seems to be due to detecting repeated similarities which are unavoidable like names of people and places, dates and battle honours) [6] as the Duplicate Detector makes it clear there are no issues [7] (no action req'd).
- Duplicate links: a few repeat links to be removed:
- South Australia
- 10th Battalion
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- The appears to be a typo in Note 2: "A number of the battalion's initial volunteers were also recruited Broken Hill, in outback New South Wales." Seems to be missing a word, consider instead: "A number of the battalion's initial volunteers were also recruited from Broken Hill, in outback New South Wales."
- Seems a bit informal: "...the 2/10th belonged to the 18th Brigade...", consider perhaps "...was part of..." or "...was under command of..." (suggestion only)
- Perhaps wikilink Tidworth (seems to be misspelt as Tidsworth in this article although I think this is common in a number of sources).
- Wikilink Wanigela (to Wanigela, Oro Province).
- This sentence runs on: "After a period of rest and reorganisation in Australia during which the units of the 2nd AIF were converted to the Jungle Division establishment while based around Ravenshoe, Queensland." Perhaps reword somehow?
- This sentence is quite long and should probably be split: "Although the battalion undertook a series of local patrols after this, the fighting around Parramatta constituted the last of the 2/10th's major actions of the war, and after the hostilities ended in mid-August following Japan's surrender the battalion's personnel were slowly repatriated back to Australia in drafts for discharge, while others – 70 in total – were transferred to other units for subsequent service in the 34th Brigade for occupation duties as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan."
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
- No issues with OR that I could see.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.
- Uses effective summary style whilst place actions of the unit in the appropriate context.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues I could see.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No issues here.
- 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:
- Images are free / PD and seem to have the req'd information / templates.
- Captions look ok.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- This is a very good article in my opinion, only a few prose nitpicks and wikilinks that I could spot. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- G'day, AC, thanks muchly for the review. I think I've implemented all of your suggestions. These are my changes: [8]. I even found an interesting bit about reinforcements coming from the 11th Motor Regiment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good work, happy with those changes. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- G'day, AC, thanks muchly for the review. I think I've implemented all of your suggestions. These are my changes: [8]. I even found an interesting bit about reinforcements coming from the 11th Motor Regiment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)