Talk:3rd Pioneer Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 03:22, 3 July 2016 (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 (no action required)
• Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: No dead links - [4] (no action req'd).
• Alt text: One of the images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - [5] (no action required)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate link to be removed.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Perhaps consider adding some third level headings to the history section to break it up? (suggestion only)
  • "Trained as infantrymen..." - perhaps link infantrymen?
  • "...from one separate state..." - perhaps instead "one particular state"
  • "... During the action for which Peeler received the award..." this seems a little long winded - perhaps just simplify as "... During the action Peeler was part of a Lewis Gun team..."?
  • Perhaps wikilink "tunneling companies"?
  • Wikilink Belle, Heilly, Ribemont, the Somme and Amiens if appropriate links exist.
  • Repetitive prose here " In the lull the followed" (used twice) - perhaps reword?
  • Is this correct presentation "102nd US Engineers" - would "US 102nd Engineers" be better?
  • I did a light copy edit so pls check you are happy with my changes here - [7].

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the limited sources available for this unit.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major aspects seem to be covered.
  • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues.

• 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 are appropriate for article and are PD and have the req'd documentation.
  • Captions look ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article looks good to me, and although fairly short this is due to the limited literature available on the unit. Indeed, this article is now probably one of the more accessible and complete histories available. Only a couple of minor prose issues to address, otherwise there should be no issue with it moving forward. Anotherclown (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Anotherclown: G'day, mate, thanks for taking a look at this. Your changes look good to me, and I think I've gotten all your points now. These are my changes: [8] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
      • No problems, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)