Talk:26th Battalion (Australia)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 04:13, 11 December 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 reveals 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 reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
- Duplicate links: one duplicate link to be removed:
- "Battle honours".
- Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Battle honours".
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- "it formed part of the 7th Brigade, which was attached to 2nd Division..." missing definite article here: i.e. "the 2nd Division".
- Repetitive prose here: "in late August they advanced on the brigade's left during an attack at Biaches which saw the Allies advance..." (advanced and advance), perhaps reword slightly?
- "Following the outbreak of World War II in September 1939"... World War II is wikilinked here, but you use it in the paragraph above without wikilinking)
- I think the comma might be out of place here: "Determined Japanese resistance along the Ratsua front, resulted in an amphibious landing..."
- Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- Good use of recently published material.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major points are covered with out going into unnecessary detail.
- "It also adopted the motto, Nunquam non Paratus" - is a translation available for this?
- "'A' Company was detached at this time to Merauke Force..." Where? As you write it was outside Australian territory (and that this was significant for a militia unit) it might help the reader to say it was in the Dutch East Indies.
- 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 seem to be free / PD and most have the req'd information / templates.
- Captions look fine.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- Looks very good to me, just a few points above to address. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed all of the points raised. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed all of the points raised. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)