Talk:1st Armoured Regiment (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Some refs need place of publication.

I think this is done now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   What makes australian-armour.com reliable?

Probably nothing... I have removed the cites where possible and added Hopkins (which I had at home so now I'm back from overseas I have been able to use it). I believe it is now only used for the more of the trivial information (i.e. regimental marches etc in the infobox). Not sure I can find any refs to replace these but I will have a look. Anotherclown (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Replaced a few more. Anotherclown (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The things cited by australian-armour.com are now trivial enough not to matter, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Add something about WW2 service to the lede. When exactly did it get its Centurions? The structure in the late '50s is a bit unclear. Did it only have B and C Squadrons after A was disbanded? If so, then when was A reformed?

WW2 mentioned in the lede, and I have now clarified arrival date of the Centurions in 1952. Also added info on raising of Sqns in the 1950s and clarified the re-raising of A Sqn in 1968. Anotherclown (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also added a bit more on WW2 ops in the prose with refs to Hopkins. Anotherclown (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   A photo of a M-1 would be useful.

Will see what I can do. Anotherclown (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to jump in, I've been looking for a PD photo of an Australian M-1 for the last few years, but without any success. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Nick, yeah not having much luck either. There are plenty of images on the Defence site but fair use might be difficult to establish. Had a look through the US DoD site in the hope they might have something from Talisman Saber last year but to no avail... Anotherclown (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article and for your fixes and suggestions. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)