Talk:18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by AustralianRupert in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I will review this over the next couple of days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Initial comments/suggestions/observations: G'day, nice work. I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- in the lead, "battlegroups" is a dab link that should be repointed (probably to Battlegroup (army))
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- in the lead, "Merton Beckwith-Smith" appears to be linked to Major General...I'd suggest repointing this to the article about the person
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- suggestion maybe making "Formation and home defence" a stand alone 2nd level header/section, and then deleting "1930s" as a subheader from the Background
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Padget was deployed" --> "Paget was deployed"
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "forty-eight, and only 47 instead..." --> "48, and only 47 instead..." (for consistency of style within the sentence)
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- suggest upscaling "File:Singapore map 1942.jpg" a little to make it a little more readable
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "before leaving to be" --> "before leaving to become"
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- irregular caps: "the Chief of staff of the..." --> "Chief of Staff" or "chief of staff"
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- this clause seems awkward: "...wrote that the redeployment of the division rather than it being used to reinforce Crusader and the success that was hoped for, reflected that..."
- Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Yes that looks fine, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "the Japanese had forced Allied forces south through Malaya..." --> "the Japanese had pushed Allied forces south through Malaya" (to avoid repetition of "forced/forces")
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "the Ayer Hitman area" --> "Ayer Hitam"
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- sorry, I wasn't clear here: "Hitman" --> "Hitam". I've fixed this now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Whoops! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- sorry, I wasn't clear here: "Hitman" --> "Hitam". I've fixed this now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Punjabis' officer commanding": was this the battalion commander (i.e. CO), or a company commander (i.e. OC)?
- I have asked Keith-264 to tackle this one, as it comes from a source I do not have access to.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ack, no worries, will wait to see what Keith says. If he doesn't have the source anymore, potentially you could just change it to "Punjabis' commander", which would probably be generic enough. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have asked Keith-264 to tackle this one, as it comes from a source I do not have access to.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "endangered the Westforce line of communications" --> "endangered Westforce's line of communications"?
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- " 21 January, Key visited the brigade": has Key been introduced yet?
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "attack could succeed, Duke cancelled the operation": not sure, have you introduced Duke yet?
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- slightly inconsistent hyphenation: "northwest" but also "north-west"
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "The rest of the division remaining in its sector" --> "The rest of the division remained in its sector"
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- "covering the Peirce and MacRitchie Reservoir" --> "covering the Peirce and MacRitchie Reservoirs"?
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- possibly an WP:EASTEREGG link: "the 53rd Brigade group", suggest: "a brigade group based on the 53rd Brigade"
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- in the General officer commanding section, why are some entries presented with full names, and others use initials?
- Joslen only uses the initials. Some are more well known and have articles, and as such their full names have been used. The others, www.generals.dk etc was used to find out their full names (used within the actual piped link). Any advice on what to do?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I note you use full names in the body of the article, so I would recommend making the list consistent with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I note you use full names in the body of the article, so I would recommend making the list consistent with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Joslen only uses the initials. Some are more well known and have articles, and as such their full names have been used. The others, www.generals.dk etc was used to find out their full names (used within the actual piped link). Any advice on what to do?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- File:Japanese troops johore.png: great image, but I'm not sure we can use this. According the IWM it is still copyrighted: [1]. Is there any evidence that this isn't the case?
- I do not believe so. I will request the peeps over at the Commons remove it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Replaced with a free image, and the original nominated for deletion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- I do not believe so. I will request the peeps over at the Commons remove it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- "File:Bosbritsurrendergroup.jpg": another fascinating image, but unfortunately I'm also not sure about the licencing on this one. I note it uses a Japanese PD licence, but it doesn't seem to provide evidence of this. Do we have any details on when and where this image was published first? The link to Getty images seems to imply that they might own the copyright to this, as they are asking for a considerable sum for licences. I tried to load a web archive version of the website quoted by the original uploader, but the images wouldn't load, so unfortunately I'm not sure how useful that is. I will put the link here, though, in case it works for you: [2]
- This has been a confusing one for me, as it is one of the more (in)famous photos of the surrender. There are only two books, that I am aware of, that use the image. I do not have access to one of them no more, and other - via the Resource Center - cited GettyImages. I have looked at every copy I could find on the net, and they either cite Getty or do not provide a source (which has included several major newspapers; one of which had an online article all about several men in the photo and its context - tall soldiers from across the 18th Div and other units to contrast with the smaller Japanese guys for a nice wartime propaganda show). The latter made me feel that the photo was fair use material. Based off your response, that probably is not be the case. I can request that the photo be removed on the Commons? In addition, I have found a similar photo that can replace it once I review the AWM's copyright info.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, it might be possible to upload the image to Wikipedia rather than Commons and use a fair use license if it was considered to be an iconic image of the surrender (which it could well be). Per WP:NFCI, there would probably need to be some commentary in this article, relating to the image, and its iconic status (which would need to be referenced). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alas, the sources found are of the more unreliable nature - opinion pieces, no cites etc. I have replaced the image with a free one from the AWM.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- No worries, probably the best solution at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Alas, the sources found are of the more unreliable nature - opinion pieces, no cites etc. I have replaced the image with a free one from the AWM.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, it might be possible to upload the image to Wikipedia rather than Commons and use a fair use license if it was considered to be an iconic image of the surrender (which it could well be). Per WP:NFCI, there would probably need to be some commentary in this article, relating to the image, and its iconic status (which would need to be referenced). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- This has been a confusing one for me, as it is one of the more (in)famous photos of the surrender. There are only two books, that I am aware of, that use the image. I do not have access to one of them no more, and other - via the Resource Center - cited GettyImages. I have looked at every copy I could find on the net, and they either cite Getty or do not provide a source (which has included several major newspapers; one of which had an online article all about several men in the photo and its context - tall soldiers from across the 18th Div and other units to contrast with the smaller Japanese guys for a nice wartime propaganda show). The latter made me feel that the photo was fair use material. Based off your response, that probably is not be the case. I can request that the photo be removed on the Commons? In addition, I have found a similar photo that can replace it once I review the AWM's copyright info.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- @AustralianRupert:: Thank you for the review and comments, I will aim to clear these all up over the coming days. For the moment, I have a small reply above in regards to the photos.
- Too easy, hope you had a relaxing and enjoyable Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Criteria
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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':
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail: