Talk:Battle of Madang/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 09:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action req'd)
• Disambiguations: no dabs - [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] (suggestion only, not a GA req)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Slight inconsistency in the infobox with flag for Japanese commander and no flag in Allied column. Perhaps don't need either?
  • I think there might be a missing word here: " the area had been placed Australian administration in 1920 and had subsequently been renamed...".
  • Use of double negative here could probably be improved: "...it was not impassable particularly on foot..."
  • Repetitive wording here: "...terrain is less rugged than the Finisterre Range to the south and there are no especially high features, although the terrain..." ("the terrain").
  • Wording is a little clunky here: "...bypass Saidor following the Landing at Saidor by US troops...", suggest something like "...bypass Saidor following the landing there by US troops..."
  • "In the early stages of the pursuit, the Australians sent long range patrols..." hyphenate "long-range" (per my Macquarie Dictionary at least).
  • "11th Division's divisional carrier company..." perhaps wikilink carrier here to Universal Carrier?
  • "...Several artillery rounds were fired..." I assume by the Japanese at the Australians? Perhaps clarify?
  • "...cracked inaccurately..." language seems a little too descriptive here for an encyclopedia entry.
  • "...since the fighting around Kokoda and Buna–Gona..." maybe add wikilinks here for the Kokoda Campaign and Battle of Buna-Gona?
  • No MOS issues that I could see.

• 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 sources available.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major aspects of the topic seem to be covered that I could see.
  • 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 POV issues.
  • All significant views are covered.

• 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.
  • Captions look ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This looks pretty good to me, and I only have a few points about prose above. Otherwise I made a few minor edits [7]. Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Anotherclown: Thanks for taking this on, AC. I've made the suggested changes, including adding alt text. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Changes look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)