Talk:M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments/suggestions: G'day, Nick, this is excellent work. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Either 817 or 840 M113s --> "Up to 840 M113s" or maybe "Between 817 and 840 M113s"?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• in the lead, suggest linking the various conflicts/operations, e.g. Vietnam War, Somalia, Rwanda and East Timor
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• A project to replace the M113s is currently underway --> maybe include the expected year of this replacement?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Each of the regiments was --> "Each regiment was"?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Innesfail --> Innisfail
  • oops, fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• All of Model 74C turrets had been --> "All of the Model 74C turrets had been..." or "All Model 74C turrets had been..."
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• maneuver support vehicles --> "manoeuvre"
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• placed during the 1963–64 --> "1963–1964"
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• a single 81mm mortar --> non breaking space between 81 and mm
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• suggest linking 2nd Cavalry Regiment
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• the following terms appear to be overlinked: Department of Defence (Australia), infantry fighting vehicle, M101 howitzer (although this one is probably ok given it is a pipe), 1 RAR,
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, is there an ISSN for the Australian Army Journal?
  • Added (for the pre-1968 iteration - as I understand it, the journal has been stopped and started again on several occasions and WorldCat has multiple records) Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• same as above (ISBN or OCLC) for the Baines work?
  • OCLC added. Oddly, it seems to lack an ISBN and no copy was provided to the National Library of Australia. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• "M113 Upgrade Program" --> "M113 upgrade program"?
  • Lower case per the Australian National Audit Office's usage (it looks like the official name for the project was Project Land 106 ) Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks a lot for this review Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No worries, your changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c. it contains no original research; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Passing review now. Thanks for your efforts with this article, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)