Talk:32nd Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:38, 1 August 2015 (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 issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: a couple of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • I did a bit of gardening at the start of the review to take care of a few of the obvious MOS issues, typos etc - pls see my edits here [7].
  • There are a few place names that could probably be wikilinked to provide the reader added context if they want it (for instance Armentieres, Corbie, Vaux, Messines, Morlancourt, etc).
    • I wasn't sure of the right one for Vaux, so I left it. I think I got the others, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Prose here: "...during this period, in order to make up for the losses the Australians had suffered during the previous months, a number of Australian battalions were disbanded at this time..." (seem redundant to have "during this period" and "at this time" in the same sentence), perhaps reword one (or even just delete one)?
  • missing word here: "...through an amalgamation of 5th Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment...", consider instead: "through an amalgamation of the 5th Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment..."
  • Maybe wikilink Buna–Gona.
  • "...The New Britain campaign was a campaign of containment...", consider instead "...The New Britain campaign was one of containment..."
  • Wikilink Footscray.
  • Minor issue with the reflist with Grey listed before Festberg (alphabet is A, B, C, D, E, F, then G), also shouldn't Palazzo 2001 come before Palazzo 2004? You have it the other way but I thought by convention it was oldest work first?
    • All fixed, I think. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • The article is well referenced to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • The article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail, making effective use of summary style.
  • Most All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.
    • Sorry another point, what about a list of COs, you usually include one of these do not you? The AWM history has the req'd info. Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • G'day, I've added a list of First World War CO's now; I can't find anything for the inter-war years etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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 seem to be free / PD and mostly have the req'd information / templates.
    • Do File:8th Brigade (Australia) infantry school map reading class, France 1918.jpg and File:14 32nd Battalion (Australia) wounded New Britain March 1945.jpg each need some sort of PD US tag?
      • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article looks fine to me, just a couple of minor MOS and prose issues mostly to deal with. Always happy to discuss anything you disagree with of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed everything now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, looks good. Closing review now as successful. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)