Jump to content

Talk:2/7th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:25, 11 December 2016 (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 req'd)
  • Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: No dead links - [4] (no action req'd).
  • Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding - [5] (suggestion only, not a GA req)
  • 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

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Prose is a little repetitive here: "The 2/7th Battalion[Note 2] was raised on 25 October 1939 at Puckapunyal, Victoria, as part of the all volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force that was raised..." ("was raised" x 2 in same sentence)
    • Same here: "...against the hastily established Allied defensive positions, forcing the British and Commonwealth troops to hastily withdraw..." ("hastily" x 2)
    • "...heavy air attack as the Germans heavily..." ("heavy" and "heavily")
    • "...This was subsequently undertaken in Palestine under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Guinn,[24] before the 2/7th was sent to Syria to undertake..." ("undertaken")
    • No MOS issues that I could see.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • No issues. Article is well referenced and overall looks to reflect the sources available.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major aspects seem to be covered that I could see. Only a couple of minor points:
      • You might consider adding the battalion's casualty figures to some of the campaign descriptions (some have it others don't). From Johnston The Proud 6th:
        • Libya: 15 KIA, 2 DOW, 3 DOAS, 75 WIA, 1 POW (p. 242)
        • Greece: 5 KIA, 3 DOW, 0 DOAS, 7 WIA, 65 POW (p. 243)
        • Creete: 27 KIA, 0 DOW, 1 DOAS, 70 WIA, 433 POW (p. 243)
        • Papua: 5 KIA, 1 DOW, 0 DOAS, 4 WIA, 0 POW (p. 244)
        • Wau-Salamaua: 69 KIA, 19 DOW, 5 DOAS, 221 WIA, 0 POW (p. 244)
        • Aitape-Wewak: 22 KIA, 11 DOW, 5 DOAS, 95 WIA, 0 POW (p. 244)
    • 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 POV issues.
    • Article seems to reflect the sources available.
  • 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.

Comments from Cinderella

[edit]

Lead reads "successfully capturing Bardia and Tobruk". Impies sole responsibility? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]