Talk:Battle of Slater's Knoll/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:46, 24 April 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: Ext links all work - [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: All images have 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: no duplicate link to be removed.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Prose looks fine by and large.
    • "...these tanks were brought up towards the 25th position...", should this be "...these tanks were brought up towards the 25th's position..."?
      • Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No MOS issues that I could see.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major aspects appear to be covered.
    • Perhaps mention that the Australian troops were Militia? It is an important aspect of Australian involvement in the campaign in my opinion (although it doesn't warrant lengthy explanation here, just a mention I feel).
      • Added, I think most of the infantry battalions were about 250 AIF, and 400 odd CMF at the time (based on looking at the war diaries), I mentioned both. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I wonder if the strengths in the infobox should be clarified? Terms like "1 division" probably do not mean much when one considers how depleted the Japanese force was. Indeed you appear to have fairly detailed strength figures for the Japanese 6th Division ("3,300" men quoting from the article). Are similar figures available for the Australian 7th Brigade? If so these might be better off being included in the infobox.
      • I would say that the Australian brigade would have been roughly equal in strength to the Japanese division (about 3,000 odd each), but I don't have any refs that provide figures for all the supporting arms of the 7th Bde. I have refs for the three inf battalions which had between 600 and 700 pers each around the time of the battle. I've added the inf bn strengths to the body of the article, but not really sure about adding "~2,000 - 3,000" in the infobox for the Australians without a ref. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Gday. Good work with adding what you have. I'd say lets not guess though with overall strength - what you have is a good solution. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Incidentally Belham and Denham The Blue Diamonds: The History of the 7th Brigade, p. 140 mentions "Interrogation of prisoners and captured documents indicated that a force of 2400 enemy was in the forward areas, with 620 killed and probably over 1000 wounded." I couldn't see anything listing 7 Bde strength in it unfortunately though. Also I wonder if this source (The Blue Diamonds) might hold some use for this or some of your other articles in other areas? Do you still have a copy?
      • G'day, yes, I still have a copy. I've added a couple of citations to it now. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Article is focused.

• 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 most seem to have the req'd documentation.
    • Does File:Bougainville Matilda (AWM 018384).jpg need a PD US tag?
      • Yes, I've added this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • As a current A class article this one is already in excellent shape in my opinion. Only a couple of very minor points above to go over. Anotherclown (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for these comments, I think I've got most of these now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)