Talk:Battle of Gang Toi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

• one dab link found: [3] (might have to link to the Wiktionary definition to solve this);

Done this now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• no issues with ext links reported;
• images lack alt text.

Added now, I'm so very lazy when it comes to this. Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• in the lead, "well prepared": I think this should be "well-prepared", per the Macquarie Australian Dictionary;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the lead, "dug-in Viet Cong company-sized force" might sound better as "...entrenched company-sized Viet Cong force...";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the lead, "forty years later..." maybe "40 years later..." per WP:ORDINAL;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Background, "country-side" should be "countryside" per Macquarie Australian Dictionary;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Background, "build up", should be "build-up" per the Macquarie Australian Dictionary;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Background, "Bien Hoa-Vung Tau", I think this should have an endash per WP:DASH;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Background, "conscripts" could be wikilinked to "Conscription in Australia" - this might be a more specific link;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Prelude, "code named" should be "codenamed" per the Macquarie Australian Dictionary;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Prelude, "inserted by airmobile operation" - do you mean by helicopter? It might be a bit clearer for the casual reader if you say this, or clarify it slightly;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Prelude, "Yet unknown to the allied force however..." (however is redundant here, maybe just say "Unknown to the allied force..." or "However, unknown to the allied force...";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, "FSB" - you might need to formally introduce this abbreviation. Same also with LZ;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, "fly-in": do you mean "departure"? Might be clearer to use this word;

No the actual arrival at the LZ... fly-in gets used extensively in the sources so I would like to keep it if its not too ambigious. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, this needs reworking: "The escorting helicopter gunships began taking small arms fire as they attempting to provide..." ("attempting" is the issue here...either missing "were" or it should be changed to "attempted");

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, I wonder if "direct support" can be wikilinked? If not, its no big drama;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, you need to formally introduce the abbreviation "ARVN";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, you need to formally introduce the abbreviation "AO";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, "With the rifle companies now kilometres apart..." Do you know how many? If so, you should state this, if not probably just say "several kilometres apart";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section (Hill 82 subsection), wikilink "section" so readers know what sized military unit this is;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, "...followed by 2 and then 3 platoons..." (platoons should be "2 and 3 Platoons" as these are proper nouns);

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, I wonder if "harbour" could be wikilinked - the casual reader might be confused by the use of this term although you and I know it means "base camp"/defensive position or similar;

Couldn't find anything appropriate I'm afraid. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, "Due to the dispersed patrolling plan adopted, the remaining companies were unable to provide any assistance however" (it is best not to end sentences with conjunctions such as "however", perhaps reword so the modifier is in the middle of the sentence);

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, this has a typo: "Unable to find a pulse, Fawcett attempted to extracted Gillson..." ("extracted" should be "extract");

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Prelude section you have " US 1/503rd Infantry", but then in the Battle section you have "1/503rd Battalion" and "2/503rd Battalion" (this is a difference of presentation style. I think you need to be consistent.

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section (Fighting in American AO), "....reinforce the Americans..." possibly change "Americans" to "1/503rd" here as the previous clause also refers to an American unit, but the current wording makes it seem like the 2/503rd might not have been American;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Battle section, "well equipped" should be "well-equipped" per the Macquarie Australian Dictionary;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "Australian casualties included two missing and six wounded..." and then "Australian dead", there is a slip here as it should be stated firstly that the "missing" were presumed killed, before the part where you say "bodies of the Australian dead";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "well prepared" should be "well-prepared" per earlier comment;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "forty years" should probably be "40 years" per earlier comment;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "Although 1RAR had been mauled, the experience of the Australians at Gang Toi was relatively minor when compared to that of the Americans however." (Per earlier comment, the conjunction "however" should not be included at the end of the sentence);

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "1/503rd Battalion" again per previous comment (check for consistency of presentation style);

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "Operation New Life" appears in italics, but "Operation Crimp" does not, this seems inconsistent;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "Alec Preece" - is this correct? The other articles (Song Bong Tran and Crimp) have "Alex Preece";

Alex Preece - well spotted. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• in the Notes section, Citation # 30 "Retrieved 2007-12-05" and "June 8, 2009" these dates are presented differently, they should be consistent throughout the whole article which uses "day month year";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2010 (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):

• No issues.

• 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':

• No issues.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• All issues have been addressed. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for a very comprehensive review. Anotherclown (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)