Talk:Battle of North Borneo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. It may take me a couple of days to get to it. An odd question: As I assume that this is headed straight for at least ACR, would you like me to do a "straight" assessment against the GAN criteria? Or give it the works and check over everything as if it were at FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

G'day, Gog, thanks for taking a look at this. I am not intending of taking this to ACR or FAC at this stage (I am a bit busy in real life at the moment), so probably just focus on the GAN criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

Looks good, thank you. It always pays to get another set of eyes on these things. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• "relatively significant casualties" A minor point: this jars to me; consider deleting "relatively". (It is explained more fully in the main text.)
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the lead seems to be trying to do a lot. Consider splitting it.
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• You link "Japanese occupation of Borneo" to Borneo campaign (1942). Possibly Japanese occupation of British Borneo would be a better target?
  • That link is used later in the paragraph for the occupation policies, so I wasn't sure about using it for initial fighting in 1942 -- as such I reworded the earlier use of "occupation" to invasion to distinguish between the two phases (main combat operations and then occupation). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Having been planned by General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the South West Pacific Area, to take place in three stages—preparatory bombardment, forced landings, advance—the objective of the operation in north Borneo was to enable the Allies to establish "an advanced fleet base" for the British Pacific Fleet in Brunei Bay, which offered the Allies a deep-water port,[8] in order to enable subsequent naval operations, to capture the vast oil and rubber supplies available in the area and to re-establish British civil administration." Sentence creep, perhaps?
  • I have split this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Link Labuan.
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• "another was sent to its aid to attack the Japanese force from the rear" Maybe 'another was sent to aid it by attacking the Japanese force from the rear'?
  • Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• "the company reached their" Genuine question: Can a company reach "their" objective, or should it be its?
  • Adjusted -- I think, it depends whether one considers it a collective noun, or not (which I think some people agree with and some don't). The style guide I use at work says to use "it" rather than they, but I sometimes get a bit sloppy. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• "for which they were intended, arrived at Weston on 3 July, where it relieved" Should this be consistent?
  • Adjusted per the above. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I will give it another read through, but that trivia is all I can find. Well up to your standards. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look, Gog. I think I've addressed the points above. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that all looks good. I found the coverage of this in Japanese occupation of British Borneo interesting when I did a little work on it 18 months ago (I note that you and Zawed did a lot of tidying up after me - I am not sure if I have improved much since then) and the full, detailed treatment is even more so. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed