Talk:2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:13, 27 February 2016 (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 reveals no errors (no action required)
- Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
- Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action req'd)
- Alt text: Some of the images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it for consistency (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: one duplicate link to be removed:
- Bren light machine gun (see "manner as light machine guns, such as the Bren")
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- "... seeing action in the disastrous fall of Singapore and on Java...", perhaps note that they arrived as reinforcements late in the campaign?
- "... there was an influx in volunteers for the 2nd AIF...", perhaps consider "... there was an influx of volunteers for the 2nd AIF..."
- "...the decision was made to only recruit personnel for the 2/4th only from the west..." → "...the decision was made to recruit personnel for the 2/4th only from the west..."
- "...was on individual training rather than collective..." → "...was on individual rather than collective training..."
- repetitive prose here: "..initially his requests had been rejected initially..." (initially x 2)
- "...the battalion received orders to move north to Darwin..." You link Darwin here but it was mentioned earlier so the link should be moved per the MOS.
- Wikilink SS Westralia (1897)
- repetitive prose here: "...departure was advanced and so they departed..." (departed and departure)
- "...concentrated their landing in the Australian 8th Division’s area of responsibility..." (perhaps note that it was understrength with only two brigades available and allocated a very wide frontage?)
- Is the comma correct here: "...taking their wounded, with them..."?
- Also I question the comma placement here: "... facing a narrow, peninsula between..."
- Some inconsistency b/n "machine-gun" and "machine gun" (hyphen vs no hyphen)
- Typo here I think: "Causeway before the it was finally..."
- "in Singapore were initially concentrated in Changi prison, in Singapore..." this seems a little redundant to mention Singapore twice.
- G'day, I think I've fixed all of these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No issues.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major aspects appear to have been covered.
- 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 have the req'd documentation.
- Does File:Sarimbun battle.jpg need a PD US tag?
- I've just removed it as I wasn't sure if a US tag could actually be applied. It's PD in Australia, most certainly, but not sure about the US. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ack, sorry for the bum steer. I probably know more about the far side of the moon than image policy. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've just removed it as I wasn't sure if a US tag could actually be applied. It's PD in Australia, most certainly, but not sure about the US. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Captions look fine.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- Article is in good shape, mainly just a few prose issues to address. Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anotherclown: Thanks for the review, I think I've gotten all of these now. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anotherclown: Thanks for the review, I think I've gotten all of these now. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)