Talk:2/18th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (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 an error with reference consolidation:
  • {{harvnb|Burfitt|1991|p=213}}. (Multiple references contain the same content) Done
  • Burfitt213 (Multiple references are using the same name) Done
• Disambiguations: one dab link [3]:
  • Malaya Done
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Images all have alt text (no action required).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [5] (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Is there a missing word here? "In mid-1940, although fighting had not yet spread to the Pacific, concerns amongst the Allies about the strength of defences around Singapore and Malaya...", specifically should it be "In mid-1940, although fighting had not yet spread to the Pacific, concerns amongst the Allies about the strength of the defences around Singapore and Malaya..."
  • This is a little repetitive: "During this time, the battalion was briefly commanded by Major William Fraser, when Varley briefly took over Eastforce...", specifically "briefly" used twice. Perhaps reword?
  • I'm not sure about the wording and punctuation here: "Exploiting the holes in the battalion's perimeter to avoid resistance, and by 1:30 am on 9 February, the Japanese had penetrated towards battalion headquarters near the Lim Chau Kang road, threatening to roll up the battalion's rear..." Would this work better: "Exploiting the holes in the battalion's perimeter to avoid resistance, by 1:30 am on 9 February the Japanese had penetrated towards battalion headquarters near the Lim Chau Kang road, threatening to roll up the battalion's rear...?"
  • Some missing words here I think: "When the brigade launched a counter-attack later that day, the majority battalion was held back in reserve...", consider → "When the brigade launched a counter-attack later that day, the majority of the battalion was held back in reserve..."
  • Is there a missing word here: "In response, the 2/18th was sent to retake high ground southeast of the Ulu Pandan...", consider → "In response, the 2/18th was sent to retake the high ground southeast of the Ulu Pandan..."
  • Missing word here to: "On 13 February, an attempt to gain room for a possible counter-attack...", consider → "On 13 February, in an attempt to gain room for a possible counter-attack..."
  • I think this could be reworded: "Following the surrender, while the majority of the 2/18th obeyed the order not to escape, a small number of men attempted to evade capture. Consider more simply: "While the majority of the 2/18th obeyed the order not to escape following the surrender, a small number of men attempted to evade capture." (suggestion only)
  • I wonder if this could be improved: "Shortly afterwards, the men were split up and sent to various locations to serve as labourers." To me the word "labourers" doesn't fully convey what these men were subjected to. Perhaps "forced labourers" might be better (perhaps even "slave labourers", although that might be too strong)?
  • "Some remained in Changi, some were sent to Japan or were sent to work on the Thai–Burma Railway, and others still were sent to Borneo where they were subjected to the Sandakan Death Marches." Perhaps: "Some remained in Changi, while some were sent to Japan or were sent to work on the Thai–Burma Railway, and others still were sent to Borneo where they were subjected to the Sandakan Death Marches."
    • All points actioned. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • Consistent citation style used throughout.
  • No issues with OR.
  • Not sure of the policy link but I'm pretty sure we don't use "Pty Ltd" in publishers names. Done

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points are covered without going into undue detail.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues here AFAIK.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • All recent edits look constructive.

• 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 used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article is in good shape, just a couple of minor issues with prose to work through / discuss. Otherwise the article should have no problem with being promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, I think I've covered off on everything above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem at all. I'm happy with the changes so I've passed the review. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)