Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Kapyong/Archive 1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Withdrawn at nominator's request -'MBK₀₀₄ 06:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kapyong[edit]

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it is an important topic and meets most if not all of the criteria. I'm not sure of the protocol and currently have another article undergoing review at the moment and apologise in advance if this offends anyone. That said I have used the comments from First Battle of Maryang San to improve this article so hopefully the points raised during that ACR should have already been taken care of. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support: looks look very good to me. The article is well written, referenced and illustrated with appropriate images. Alt text is present and ext links all check out. I have a couple of comments:
- ~~There is one dab link (Vanguard), however, that one might not be able to be solved just looking at it.~~ Done
  - Looks like you fixed this one by creating a new page with (disambig) after it Vanguard (disambiguation). Makes sense to me. Evidentally some IP didn't agree and reverted it. Not really sure why as your solution makes sense to me. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey mate, yeah was doing it as you wrote your review. Sorry to waste your time. Anotherclown (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I found a few stylised apostrophes, which should be straight apostrophes under the MOS. I fixed a few, but you might like to see if you can find any others.~~ Done
  - Have done this now but it was painful - more than 100 O'Neills and O'Dowds! Anotherclown (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I'm a little concerned about the images of the destroyed Cromwell and the C-119 Boxcar, which have no author or date information, the rest of the images, however, seem fine.~~ Done— AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have replaced the dodgy picture of the C-119 and fixed the Cromwell author and date info. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I missed this one before. Using the ref error checker tool, indicates that there are a few citations that could be consolidated. This tool can be added to your edit page by going to My Preferences ==> Gadgets ==> Reftools. It will then appear as an icon at the top of the page when you click Edit this page. It will be the icon with {{cite}} on it. If you choose the Error check button, and search for "References with the same content", it will show you if there are any citations that can be consolidated. Examples I have are: Breen 1992, p. 12; Breen 1994, p. 93, Horner 2008, p. 68 and 70, Butler, Argent and Shelton 2002, p. 103; O'Neill 1985, p. 132; Johnston 2003, p. 97; O'Neill 1985, p., 151. Done — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, you learn something everyday. Pretty sure I have got all of these now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've got them all now. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I am going overseas on work for the next 6 months and will have very limited internet connectivity during this time. Consequently I will be withdrawing Battle of Kapyong from ACR. When I put the article up for ACR I was perhaps a little ambitious in expecting that it would be able to complete the process before I was due to leave, but it seems that there is less interest in the topic than I expected. My apologies for wasting everyone's time, and thank you all for those who have taken the time to review and to provide suggestions and contributions to the article (especially Jim101 and AustralianRupert). I look forward to picking up where I left off when I return. Cheers lads. Anotherclown (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.