Jump to content

Talk:2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/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) 23:39, 1 August 2015 (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 issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
  • Linkrot: one dead link [4]:
  • Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I wonder if it should be introduced as an Australian battalion in the lead?
    • This is a little repetitive: " It was later transferred to the Middle East, and later..." (later twice - you also use the word two or 3 times more in the same paragraph)
    • Wikilink Darling Harbour, Fremantle, Cape Town, Freetown, Gourock, Colchester, Glasgow
    • Likewise wikilink some of the Greek placenames (where you can determine what page to link to)
    • Wikilink Gaza and "Vichy French" (some readers will not understand what Vichy France was), Damascus
    • Wikilink Deception Bay, Brisbane, Port Moresby, Townsville, Oro Bay,
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The article is sufficiently referenced to WP:RS, with the article seemingly reflecting the sources available.
    • No issues with OR I could see.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • The article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail, making effective use of summary style.
    • All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues I could see.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues here.
  • 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 seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
    • Captions look fine.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2/1st_Machine_Gun_Battalion_(Australia)/GA1&oldid=674355779"