Talk:Battle of Sungei Koemba/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• Disambiguations: None found - [3]
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4]
• Alt text: Images lack alt text. Although this is not a requirement for GA, you might consider adding it in.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• I think the lead might need to be tweaked a little, for instance perhaps this might be better: "The Battle of Sungei Koemba took place between May and June 1965 during the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation. Involving Australian and Indonesia troops, the battle consisted of a series of ambushes launched by the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, along the Sungei Koemba river in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo). It was part of the wider Operation Claret which involved cross-border operations by British-Commonwealth units who penetrated up to 10, 000 yards into Indonesian territory wht the aim of disrupting the movement and resupply of Indonesian forces and to keep them off balance..."

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Prelude section you use the abbreviation "3RAR" but haven't first introduced it, e.g. "3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3RAR)";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Prelude section you have wikilinked "company", but that should be wikilinked on first mention in the Background section;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the First ambush section, in the first sentence there is a tense issue;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the First ambush section, you have "At 1132", it might make sense to clarify this time - is it am, or pm?

AM. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• sometimes you have metres first and yards second (e.g in the First ambush section), but then other times you have yards first and metres second (e.g. in the lead);

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Second ambush section, "At 1045 on 12..." was this morning or night? I think it probably best to include "am" or "pm" here (usually at ACR I get told to change from 24 hour time). But if you don't do this, you need to clarify that you are using 24 hour time by including "hours" after the time;

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, this sentence has too many "successes" in it: "The battalion would later follow up this success with a number of other successful Claret missions at Kindau and Babang, contributing to the wider success of the British-Commonwealth forces in slowly asserting control on the war";

Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, is it "West Brigade" or "the West Brigade"? (you refer to it as the West Brigade in the Prelude);

West Brigade. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the Aftermath section, "After a period of training the battalion deployed to Sarawak in April 1966 " (which battalion is this? Is it 4RAR?);

4RAR, reworded. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the References section, the title of the Van der Bijl work had an emdash when it should be an endash for the year range (I have fixed this);

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• in the References section, I've tweaked the format of one of the author's names so that it is surname, first name for consistency throughout the article (pls check this is what you wanted);

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a number of tweaks, pls check that you agree with them.

They look fine. Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• All information is cited to reliable sources and there is no original research that I can find.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Major aspects are covered, although as per below, it probably just needs a sentence or two in the Background section clarifying what the conflict was about;

• Added a bit more to the background now. How's it look? Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

• the Background section might need a little bit of information about what the Indonesian operations were aimed at;

• Please see above. Anotherclown (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• there has been considerable recent work, but the article does not seem to be subject to an edit war.

• 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 are appropriate for the article, and are tagged and captioned;
• Images are non-free images, but have appropriate free-use rationales.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Looks good, thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. Happy to pass this for GA now. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for a very thorough review (as always). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)