Talk:2/4th Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 01:13, 27 February 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: Ext links all work - [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: Some of the images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it for consistency (although its not a GA requirement) - [5] (no action required)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: one duplicate link to be removed:
  • Bren light machine gun (see "manner as light machine guns, such as the Bren")

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "... seeing action in the disastrous fall of Singapore and on Java...", perhaps note that they arrived as reinforcements late in the campaign?
  • "... there was an influx in volunteers for the 2nd AIF...", perhaps consider "... there was an influx of volunteers for the 2nd AIF..."
  • "...the decision was made to only recruit personnel for the 2/4th only from the west..." → "...the decision was made to recruit personnel for the 2/4th only from the west..."
  • "...was on individual training rather than collective..." → "...was on individual rather than collective training..."
  • repetitive prose here: "..initially his requests had been rejected initially..." (initially x 2)
  • "...the battalion received orders to move north to Darwin..." You link Darwin here but it was mentioned earlier so the link should be moved per the MOS.
  • Wikilink SS Westralia (1897)
  • repetitive prose here: "...departure was advanced and so they departed..." (departed and departure)
  • "...concentrated their landing in the Australian 8th Division’s area of responsibility..." (perhaps note that it was understrength with only two brigades available and allocated a very wide frontage?)
  • Is the comma correct here: "...taking their wounded, with them..."?
  • Also I question the comma placement here: "... facing a narrow, peninsula between..."
  • Some inconsistency b/n "machine-gun" and "machine gun" (hyphen vs no hyphen)
  • Typo here I think: "Causeway before the it was finally..."
  • "in Singapore were initially concentrated in Changi prison, in Singapore..." this seems a little redundant to mention Singapore twice.
    • G'day, I think I've fixed all of these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major aspects appear to have been covered.
  • 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.
  • Does File:Sarimbun battle.jpg need a PD US tag?
    • I've just removed it as I wasn't sure if a US tag could actually be applied. It's PD in Australia, most certainly, but not sure about the US. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Ack, sorry for the bum steer. I probably know more about the far side of the moon than image policy. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Article is in good shape, mainly just a few prose issues to address. Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Anotherclown: Thanks for the review, I think I've gotten all of these now. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Looks good, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)