Talk:28th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 19:19, 18 April 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 errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: All images use alt text [5] (no action req'd).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: one duplicate link to be removed:
  • battle honours  Done

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • typo here..."who had been intended to a sub unit within the 24th..." (to provide / to form?)
  • this seems a little awkwardly worded: "...the final decision to evacuate was still to be made and so the 7th Brigade was dispatched in early September..." (particularly "and so").
  • Repeated phrasing here: "At this time, the AIF was reorganised and expanded in preparation for future operations. Two new infantry divisions were formed at this time..." ("at this time" twice in proximity).
  • repeated word here: "...based in East Perth with sub-units based at Albany..." (based twice, perhaps just delete the second instance?)
    • All  Done

• 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.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • No issues I could see, covers all major points without unnecessary detail.
  • In the lead "...before seeing action against the Japanese in the New Britain campaign..." Maybe just add the year this occurred for context?  Done

• 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 all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions seem ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Good work - only a couple of minor nitpicks above to work through. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Happy with your changes, I also made a few tweaks so pls review and revert if you disagree. Passing now though as the article clearly meets the GA criteria in my opinion. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Happy with your tweak; sorry I missed that. Thanks for your review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)