Talk:Tanks in the Australian Army/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick this GAR shortly. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks reports no problems with the article (no action required)
Dablinks reports no problems with the article (no action required)
No duplicate links found (no action required)
Images are appropriately licensed and sourced, and have suitable captions (no action required)
Image gallery conforms to WP:IG (no action required)
Prose referencig appears to be in order (no action required)
As far as I can tell, the Footnotes employ some sort of parenthetical referencing, embedding the reference in the text itself. Granted it is not a part of the prose, which would be disallowed per WP:WIAGA note 5, and I'm not sure if this qualifies for coverage of the "rule". Just to be on the safe side would you mind if I tried to reformat refs in a footnote to see if it is feasible to apply a uniform referencing style there as well?
In "One Australian was killed and 10 wounded, while communist losses included at least 107 killed, six wounded and eight captured." I assume the "communists" were Viet Cong, but it is possible that a casual reader might miss the link. I would suggest adding some sort of clarification of the link or some other sort of revising here.

Actually, this is all I've got - nice work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read through this, I appreciate it. I've made a few changes [1] - so pls let me know if there is anything else. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good to go. Passing GA.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]