| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- by 1 and 2 RAR, do you mean by 1 then 2 RAR? When I read that I thought it was saying both battalions joined 3 RAR over there.
 Y
- Fair point, that is unclear, I meant by 1 then 2, but I think its redundant anyway so I just deleted it. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Jim Molan the attention to detail required of five years of infantry soldiering in Malaya exposed the regiment to jungle warfare skills developed by the British Army during its most successful counterinsurgency war, and later to develop its own doctrine, with the Malayan Emergency making a significant contribution to the development of the professionalism of the regiment. Is a. probably too long, and b. the bit in italics isn't clearly connected to the rest of the sentence.Y
- the transition of 4 RAR from Depot Coy to a battalion isn't clear. A bit more detail is needed regarding the decision to re-raise it and deploy it to Malaysia.Y
- Between June 1965 and March 1972 sixteen battalions of the regiment is misleading, there weren't sixteen battalions, there were nine, most of which deployed twice, which is explained in the latter part of the sentence. Perhaps sixteen battalion rotations?Y
- After fighting for two and a half hoursY
|
|
|
1b. 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:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
- "senior infantry regiment" in the lead is unsourced in the bodyY
- 5 and 7 RAR are mechanized infantry, not light infantry. Needs to be checked throughout.
- I don't believe this is the case anymore due to Plan Beersheba. Both have given / are in the process of giving up their carriers to the ACRs. All Bns of the regiment are standardizing as SIBs. 5 RAR for one gave up the last of their APCs in Aug 13. There is a bit on this at the bottom of the article. Do you think I should explain this further? Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be the case, but the ref says 7 RAR is mech.
- Added a ref for all being light infantry / SIBs as of 2013. Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Y[reply]
- no sources for mascots, and all the nicknames except 3 RAR.Y
- Got most of these, will have to do the rest tomorrow. Got family duties to attend to. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
covers main aspects
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
good level of details for a multi-battalion regiment
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
Fine
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
No editwars or recent major content changes
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
- I'm not sure about the licensing of File:Australian infantry Afghanistan Nov 2009.jpg, where is the CC info?
- Gday - not quite sure about CC. Is that creative commons? I have requested a Flickr Review as it looks like this didn't occur when it was uploaded. Is that what you meant? Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I'm not convinced of the Creative Commons licence. Flickr review should do the trick. Could ask Nikki?
- According to this [1] ISAF Media images: "uploaded to Flickr are free for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products", when you click on the image here [2] it says "some rights reserved", click on that and it takes you to here [3] which seems to say it is a CC BY 2.0. That said happy to wait for the review to check it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally uploaded this photo. It's an Australian military photo, but appears to have been donated to ISAF to be published under a CC license so should be OK to use. It could be replaced with US military photos of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan though (which are clearly PD). Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now. Happy with that.
- Didn't see this until now. I already changed the image to one which is tagged as PD. Do you think this one is an improvement or would you suggest changing back? I'm happy either way. Anotherclown (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
Placed on hold for seven days for the prose and referencing issues to be addressedAll points addressed, well done on getting such an important Australian Army article to GA. Please take it to ACR.
- Thanks very much for a thorough review. A considerable improvement. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
