Talk:Royal Australian Naval Bridging Train/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 10:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ubersejanus, I see you have nominated this article for GA but unfortunately it is pretty clear to me that it needs significant work to reach that status. On an initial review, I have identified that there are major issues with referencing, grammar/style and in places excessive detail. Some suggestions:

At the very least, every paragraph should end with a citation that serves as a reference for all the material in that paragraph. Some sentences within the paragraph may need their own citation.
I suggest using sfn/harvard citations for the book sources, which should then be listed in the references section. I notice Heathcote (current note 15) is not listed in the references section.
There are several embedded quotes (including one in the lead which shouldn't be there) that don't help narrative flow and could be trimmed.
A lot of the material in the tables could be expressed, at least partially, as text. But be selective about it; for example, I don't think it is necessary to list everything that was landed in the month of September.
As a style thing, military ranks should be presented in full and as title case when used as part of a title (e.g. Lieutenant Commander Bracegirdle) but lower case when not (e.g. Bracegirdle was promoted to lieutenant commander).
A major copyedit is needed to improve the clarity and conciseness of the text and weed out non-encyclopedic/non-neutral/weasel language. Some examples include: "It was also becoming obvious that..." (becoming obvious to who?); "Of course, this was the First World War." (non-encyclopedic); "a grand total of five days of instruction" (what is the "grand" total implying?)
I'm not sure that the two images of the sections of the Suez Canal are that helpful, as they are not easy to interpret. The photo of the RANBT staff needs its tags improved.
There are quite a few duplicate links.

The above suggestions are more a starting point (but will go a long way to improving the article), I expect that there will be other issues that I haven't picked up yet. I also see that you haven't edited much recently prior to the GA nomination so I am uncertain how familiar you are with the subject or GA requirements. If you haven't already, you should check out the Good article criteria and also see if editors over at the Military history project will be able to help, I know there are a few Aussies there so they may want to chip in and lend a hand.

Hopefully the pointers I listed provide a bit of guidance for improving the article but the amount of work required to bring it up to the necessary standard for GA is such that I don't see it as feasible or practical to do it within this review, particularly if you haven't access to the references. Therefore I am inclined to do a quick fail of this nomination so that you can do the revisions needed at your leisure. Once this has been done, you can re-nominate it for GA. Zawed (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a week with no response or edits to the article, so failing this one. Zawed (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcote

I see from the above this got raised over a year ago, but nobody picked up. What is the "Heathcote" source? Keith H99 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Tony Heathcote?

"British Admirals of the Fleet 1734-1995" ISBN 9781473803046 ? Keith H99 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]