Jump to content

Talk:2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


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 reveals no errors (no action required)
  • Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: One dead link - [4]:
    • The Lost Battalion: 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (info) [vicnet.net.au]  Done
  • Alt text: The images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - [5] (no action required)
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate link to be removed.

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • In the lead: "The 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion was formed on June 1940..." → "in June 1940"?
    • "Raised in 1940 under the command...." seems a little redundant as you already mentioned its formation in June 1940 in the previous sentence.
    • Repetitive language here: "A small number of the battalion's personnel returned to Australia and the battalion..." → "A small number of the battalion's personnel returned to Australia and it..."
    • Some inconsistency in usage of both "World War II" and "Second World War" (you also use "World War I").
    • Wikilink SS Île de France
    • Repetitive phrasing here: "...at the time and as a result of heavy censorship not widely reported in Australia at the time..." ("at the time" x 2)
    • "...Singapore had fallen..." perhaps wikilink for context?
    • "...with a squadron of British Hussars..." perhaps find a relevant wikilink for this to explain to readers that don't know what such a unit would be?
    • Wikilink carriers, Bren guns, Thompson sub-machine guns etc., fifth columnists, anti-tank rifles, Cowra, Deception Bay
    • "The battalion lost 202 men killed or died on active service...." This sentence starts a bit abruptly and lacks some context. Perhaps instead: "During the war the battalion lost 202 men killed or died on active service..."
    • I did a minor c/e and fixed some typos, my edits are here [7].
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the bulk of the sources available for this unit.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major aspects seem to be covered. A couple of minor points / suggestions:
      • Are casualties available in any source by campaign? From my own research I know that unfortunately there is nothing available in the divisional histories of the 6th and 7th Divisions (i.e. Johnston's The Proud 6th and The Silent 7th) but thought I'd ask.
      • Johnston The Proud 6th p. 219 actually describes the 2/3rd MG Bn as "a corps unit attached to the division in this campaign" (Aitape-Wewak), which explains the lack of coverage. Throughout the articles you've written on the 2nd AIF MG Bns I don't recall if you specifically spell out the command relationship they had to the divisions to which they were attached in explicit terms so I wonder if this description by Johnston might need to be considered for incorporation?
    • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues.
  • 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 appropriate for article and are PD and most seem to have the req'd documentation.
    • Captions look ok, except for one minor issue:
      • "A Vickers machine-gun team from the 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion in Syria, October 1941" (inconsistent hyphenation of "machine-gun")
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
This article looks in fine shape to me, just a few points regarding prose and C2 listed above to consider / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, thanks for your review. I think I've gotten all of these now. These are my edits: [8]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes look good to me, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2/3rd_Machine_Gun_Battalion_(Australia)/GA1&oldid=725155983"