Talk:2/43rd Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 02:21, 21 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: 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):

  • Slightly repetitive wording here: "...two initially being the 2/25th and 2/28th Battalions – which was initially..." ("initially" x 2)
  • This part was a little unclear to me: "...resulting in 100 casualties..." - German or Australian or both?
    • Australian. I've expanded this a bit to hopefully add a bit more clarity. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Repetitive prose here: "...as part of a large convoy established as part... ("as part" x 2)
  • "... which saw the reduction of the battalion to about 800 personnel,[1] with the reduction of the number of vehicles...", perhaps consider instead something like: " which saw the reduction of the battalion to about 800 personnel, as well as a reduction in the number of vehicles..."? (or something similar)
  • I made a few fairly minor edits, pls see here [7].
    • Thanks, they look good to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• 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. One minor point:
    • "...established as part of Operation Pamphlet..." Should you mention this was the return of the 9th Div to Australia for context? In the lead you explain that the Bn returned to "Australia early in 1943 as the Australian Army's focus turned to fighting the Japanese in the Pacific" but this isn't really supported in the text so this might be necessary here.
  • 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 looks pretty good to me. Only a few points above, otherwise this looks up to the req'd standard to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look. I think I've gotten all your points. These are my edits: [8]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
      • They look fine to me, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)