Talk:31st/51st Battalion (Australia)/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Progression
edit- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
edit- Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- Disambiguations: two dab links [3]:
- Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
- Alt text: Images all have alt text [5] (no action required).
- Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [6] (no action required).
Criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- The article is well written and I could not find any MOS issues.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- All major points cited using WP:RS.
- Consistent citation style used throughout.
- No issues with OR.
- Minor issue with ISBNs - one uses dashes, the others do not (action required).
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major points are covered without going into undue detail.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues here.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- All recent edits look constructive.
- 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 used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- Only a couple of minor issues (dabs and isbns) identified above to deal with / discuss, otherwise I am satisfied that this article meets all the GA criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers, I think I've got them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers, I think I've got them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)