Talk:Battle of Plaman Mapu

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Plaman Mapu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll start this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• No DABs, external link OK
• Images appropriately licensed.
• The Battle of Plaman Mapu (27 April 1965) was a military engagement fought between forces of Great Britain and Indonesia and was one of the largest battles that took place during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation, a protracted and undeclared war between Indonesia and a Commonwealth of Nations (including Britain) supporting the creation of a new Malaysian state. This is awfully long and redundant; I'd suggest deleting the entire first clause and following the date with "was one of the largest battles..."
  • Done.
• Can you get a map of the area?
  • Added.
• What is the abbreviation PKI for?
  • It was for the Communist Party of Indonesia, I have clarified this in the Introduction.
• former Burmese campaigner What does this mean?
  • Sorry, this meant that he served in the Burma Campaign of the Second World War. I have clarified this as well in the text.
• 150 to 400,[10] Indonesian troops Delete the comma
  • Done.
• Soon enough, British began to level rifle fire from the trenches rephrase
  • Done.
• Provide conversions for English measurements to metric
  • I believe I have done that as well, but I will check again.
• Soon afterwards, helicopter loads of Gurkha soldiers and medical staff landed at the base, leaving the soldiers behind to secure the area and airlifting the wounded to a nearby hospital, and hostilities were ended. awkward
  • Changed slightly, hopefully more effective now.
• "Hostilities were ended" generally refers to things at a national level, not a battle.
  • Removed.
• exact number cannot be placed change "placed" to "determined"
  • Done.
• The Battle of Plaman Mapu is by most accounts considered a turning point in the Confrontation commas before and after "by most accounts"
  • Done.
• Never again was such a powerful and concentrated cross-border attack attempted by the Indonesian Army, and the nation itself was convulsed by revolution a few months later, with peace being secured in the next 12 months as the conflict ground to a halt (see The Fall of Sukarno below). Probably best to split this in half.
  • Done.
• Link no man's land
  • Done.
• For his actions during the battle, Sergeant-Major Williams received the Distinguished Conduct Medal after a six-month hospital leave and numerous surgical operations on his injured head. split this and move the award of the medal to the last sentence to tie in with the judgement about his performance.
  • Done.
• Defeat in what was to be a highly publicized victory add "intended" after "was"
  • Done.
• rose from his bed in the early morning hours irrelevant detail
  • Removed.
• Despite all of these comments, I'm still not satisfied at the quality of prose and will make another pass once you've responded to these comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest, upon rereading this I was not happy with the level of writing either, and I've gone through and done some extensive copyediting on it. There were both a number of irritating run-on sentences and equally jarring sentence fragments that I have attempted to address. Anyhow, thank you for the honest and thoughtful review, I appreciate it very much. Regards, Herodotus (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Sturmvogel 66 has not edited since April, so I am completing the review

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Could be better, but I think it is good enough for GA. Have made some changes related to BrEnglish.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Made some minor changes for MOS conformance

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Passing Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)