Talk:2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: one dead link [4]:
  • 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion: Unit Appointments (info) [ordersofbattle.com]
    • Removed, the site seems to drop in and out a lot. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • I wonder if it should be introduced as an Australian battalion in the lead?
  • This is a little repetitive: " It was later transferred to the Middle East, and later..." (later twice - you also use the word two or 3 times more in the same paragraph)
  • Wikilink Darling Harbour, Fremantle, Cape Town, Freetown, Gourock, Colchester, Glasgow
  • Likewise wikilink some of the Greek placenames (where you can determine what page to link to)
  • Wikilink Gaza and "Vichy French" (some readers will not understand what Vichy France was), Damascus
  • Wikilink Deception Bay, Brisbane, Port Moresby, Townsville, Oro Bay,
    • G'day, I think I've got these. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • The article is sufficiently referenced to WP:RS, with the article seemingly reflecting the sources available.
  • No issues with OR I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • The article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail, making effective use of summary style.
  • All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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 to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Only some minor issues (mostly wikilinks and a dead url) that I could spot on this one, otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed everything now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, closed as successful now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)