Talk:Australian Voluntary Hospital/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 03:34, 26 October 2013 (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 with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: no external links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Typo here: "There relatively large numbers of these...", → "There were relatively large numbers of these..."
  • Otherwise fine.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR.
  • The citations aren't really very specific, in that a couple of them use quite large page ranges (pp. 1-7) for instance. Wonder if it might be possible to refine the cites?
    • Possible, but not simple. I'd have to go back to the War Memorial. This will take at least a week. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand why you haven't used short and long citations given you only have three refs; however, if you refine the cites more this will increase the number of footnotes so I would suggest adopting the short and long citation style you seem to use in most other articles.
  • Was a little surprised not to see a ref to one of the official history medical volumes by Butler [7]. That said I'm not sure if the AVH was covered in there though due to its unique service but if you haven't checked it might pay to do so (I suspect you already have though and there wasn't anything in there, hence you couldn't reference).
    • The AVH is mentioned in passing in all three volumes of Butler. Added a reference. Also added one to Bean. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Although short most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • Level of coverage mostly seems appropriate to me given the topic and the limited sources, although I just want to confirm that there isn't any material available in the official history.
    • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The image caption in the infobox mentions the AVH being based at St Nazaire sometime in 1914; however, the text doesn't mention this. Do we know when this was? There is a snippet view of a medical journal article available through Google books which mentions St Nazaire also [8]. Stating "...Owing to the rapid retreat of the Allied armies, it was decided to move the base from Havre to St. Nazaire..." Suspect this would have been before the move to Wimereux but this may need some investigation.
    • Correct. I have corrected the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues that 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 look ok to me. All seem to be PD and have req'd information.
  • Captions look fine.
  • The gallery effect is quite attractive - a good choice.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Only a couple of very minor points above to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Passing now. An interesting article about a topic I was unfamiliar with until you wrote about it on Wikipedia. Thank you for expanding mine (and presumably others') knowledge about the service of these remarkable people. Anotherclown (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)