Talk:Southern Rhodesian military involvement in the Malayan Emergency/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: no dab links [3] (no action required).
  • Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
  • Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
    • Alt text has now been added and it is of good standard to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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):
    • "...but it was beholden to Whitehall...", consider instead "...but was beholden to Whitehall..." (suggestion only)
    • "...Walls was promoted to Major...", should be "major" with no caps per WP:MILTERMS.
    • I'm unclear what you mean here: ""C" Squadron grew to number about 1,000 men..." Is this total strength at a single point in time or did the 1,000 men serve in its ranks over a period of time? 1,000 men seems quite large for a single Squadron (normally a company-sized FE).
    • Typo here "counter-insurgeny's", should be "counter-insurgency's.
      • It appears I misunderstood this quite seriously... I've resolved it now. About 1,000 volunteered, of whom 100 were taken, and this was Walls' original force. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tense seems a little off here: "though Major C. L. "Dare" Newell comments on their attitude towards "the aborigines", which he says was colder than that of the British soldiers."
    • This seems a little awkward to me: "..who led such an RhAR platoon in Malaya...", perhaps just "...who led an RhAR platoon in Malaya..."
    • This seems archaic to me: "around the line of rail...", perhaps just "railway line"? (suggestion only)
    • "Patrols were led around the area...", perhaps "Patrols were commanded..." or just "Patrols were led..." instead? (suggestion only)
    • "The British Royal Lincolnshire Regiment, operating in the Bahau area, about 200 kilometres (120 mi) north-west of Bekok, reported to the RhAR around this time...", might work better as: "Around this time the British Royal Lincolnshire Regiment, operating in the Bahau area, about 200 kilometres (120 mi) north-west of Bekok, reported to the RhAR...", as it provide context at the start of the sentence (suggestion only).
    • Incorrect tense (I think): "which was now heading south-east towards the Palong River...", should be "which was then heading south-east towards the Palong River..."
    • Incorrect tense here too (and some minor gramatical issues): "Now approaching the end of its two-year commitment in Malaya, the RhAR continued its patrolling around Johore province without major incident until February 1958, when it returned to Rhodesia..." perhaps consider: "As it approached the end of its two-year commitment in Malaya, the RhAR continued patrolling in Johore province without major incident until February 1958, when it returned to Rhodesia."
  • 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.
    • Is this accurate? "An RhAR patrol moved in single file...", the implication to me is that RhAR patrols always moved in single file. Surely formations would have been dictated by terrain, mission and enemy threat etc with a number of formations used in different circumstances? I can only comment on Australian infantry tactics but normally they will adopt single file when moving through very close terrain, such as thick jungle or when traversing linear features and defiles, but will utilise formations such as staggered file (flank protection), open file (able to produce firepower to both the front and flanks), arrow head (patrolling on a broad front in open country) and extended line (usually in the assault) as the tactical situation requires.
      • I thought it was implied that I was talking about in the jungle, but I have tried to make it more clear. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that change, I just think it makes it more precise. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major points are covered without going into undue detail.
    • After reading the article I was a unclear why Rhodesia was involved in the Emergency. Although you refer to the degree of independence exercised by the Southern Rhodesian government from the British and South Rhodesia's membership of the Commonwealth I wonder if the reasons for its involvement could be covered in greater detail?
      • I don't have anything more detailed in my sources but I'll try to find something. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a problem - if you do come accross something I think it would add to the context of the article but its not a war stopper in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What casualties did the RhAR suffer during the conflict, if any? Perhaps you might be able to add something about this in the final paragraph of the article?
    • What effect did Rhodesian involvement in the Emergency effect military developments and tactics etc during it's own counter-insurgency in the 1960s and 1970s? In the lead you mention the service of men such as Peter Walls and Ron Reid-Daly in the Emergency and the fact that they held key positions in the Rhodesian Security Forces during the Rhodesian Bush War of the 1970s. Yet despite the prominence afforded in the lead, these facts are actually tucked away in a footnote. Is this possibly something that could be expanded and included in the body of the article, rather than just in a footnote, along with a discussion of their signficance?
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues here AFAIK.
  • 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 or licenced and seem appropriate for the article.
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
    • This article is in very good shape in my opinion and I don't see any reason why it can't be promoted once the issues / suggestions above have been dealt with / discussed. Another interesting read and I was left wanting more information about a topic that isn't widely covered but probably should be. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the very thorough review and the kind words. I hope my edits have brought it in line in your eyes, and look forward to hearing more of your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem at all. All my points have been dealt with and I quite like the progress you have made. Happy to promote now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for another very pleasant review! Keep well now. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Rhodesian_military_involvement_in_the_Malayan_Emergency/GA1&oldid=1141731643"