Talk:31st/51st Battalion (Australia)/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 06:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Progression edit

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review edit

Criteria edit

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • The article is well written and I could not find any MOS issues.
  • 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.
    • Minor issue with ISBNs - one uses dashes, the others do not (action required).
  • 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.
  • 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:  
    • Only a couple of minor issues (dabs and isbns) identified above to deal with / discuss, otherwise I am satisfied that this article meets all the GA criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply