Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Suoi Chau Pha/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: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

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

Technical review

[edit]
  • no dabs found by the tools;
  • no external links broken;
  • images lack alt text - you might consider adding it in, although it is not a GA requirement.

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • some of the unit names are presented in italics and others are not. I think that they should all be consistent and as such would probably recommend removing the italics;
  • be careful with presenting abbreviations for units, for instance "2RAR" and "6RAR" are mentioned without being formally introduced in full;
  • "with total Australian troop strength in Vietnam now reaching 6,300 men..." (I think "now" creates a tense issue - I think it should be "at the time" or "then" or something similar);
  • sometimes you have "search and destroy" and then later "search-and-destroy" (these should be consistent);
  • "had been destroyed by recent operations..." (I think "recent" creates a tense issue - I think it should be "previous");
  • suggestion wikilinking "section", "company" and "battalion" etc. on first mention - so that readers know what sized units these are;
  • you abbreviate "CMF", but you need to formally introduce it;
  • you abbreviate "RAAF", but you need to formally introduce it first;
  • in the Battle section, I think that this sentence should be split in to two: "A Company, 7RAR had already been patrolling in the Hat Dich since 3 August when the orders for the operation were issued, and they were subsequently re-supplied by helicopter early on the evening of 5 August with the supplies successfully unloaded and the helicopters departing within three minutes utilising an insertion technique perfected by the Special Air Service Regiment";
  • in the References section, is there an ISBN or similar for the Penniman source?
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • Well referenced, IMO, and I think all or most major works have been consulted and discrepancies discussed.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • "The results were disappointing nonetheless..." (Only minor, but I suggest re-wording as this could be taken as a POV statement - it probably wouldn't need too much tweaking to rectify the issue);
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • Some recent work, but nothing constituting an edit war, IMO.
  • 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 appropriately licenced to me.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Suoi_Chau_Pha/GA1&oldid=392337939"