Talk:26th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 04:13, 11 December 2014 (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: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• 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: one duplicate link to be removed:
  • "Battle honours".
    • Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "it formed part of the 7th Brigade, which was attached to 2nd Division..." missing definite article here: i.e. "the 2nd Division".
  • Repetitive prose here: "in late August they advanced on the brigade's left during an attack at Biaches which saw the Allies advance..." (advanced and advance), perhaps reword slightly?
  • "Following the outbreak of World War II in September 1939"... World War II is wikilinked here, but you use it in the paragraph above without wikilinking)
  • I think the comma might be out of place here: "Determined Japanese resistance along the Ratsua front, resulted in an amphibious landing..."
    • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.
  • Good use of recently published material.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points are covered with out going into unnecessary detail.
  • "It also adopted the motto, Nunquam non Paratus" - is a translation available for this?
    • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "'A' Company was detached at this time to Merauke Force..." Where? As you write it was outside Australian territory (and that this was significant for a militia unit) it might help the reader to say it was in the Dutch East Indies.
    • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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 most have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Looks very good to me, just a few points above to address. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed all of the points raised. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)