Talk:Battle of Wareo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Progression

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

Initial comments

• The infobox seems a little under developed, for instance it lack strengths and casualties. Is this information available? Or are the figures in the sources unable to be refined enough to provide figures specifically for this battle (as opposed to campaign totals etc)?
  • G'day, I've found it very difficult to obtain figures that relate to this specific battle, as opposed to the overall campaign. There are a couple of primary sources that might help for the Australian strength states and casualties, but I am having difficulty interpreting/reading them due to the reproduction quality: [3]. I've found some strength figures for the Japanese, and generic strength figures for the Australians, which I've added, though. Not sure if this helps or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was able to find a II Corps report that was legible. I've added this in now, and added a url for the other War Diary that is in use. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
      • This is a good addition to the article, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• The article currently lacks co-ordinates. The co-ordinates for Wareo are available in the wiki article on that settlement however. Would it be reasonable to use these for the battle article also?
• Wikilink Nongora (in the lead and at first use in the article), Finschhafen, Nadzab, Gusika (already linked in the lead, but probably should be linked at first use in the article too), Song River, kunai grass
• Repetitive prose here: "...subjected to repeated attacks. Despite being short of food and subjected to..." ("subjected to" x 2). Perhaps reword one instance.
• "...their own losses amounted to having lost 25 killed and 51 wounded..." → consider more simply: "... their own losses amounted to 25 killed and 51 wounded..."
• Inconsistency b/n "machine gun" and "machine-gun".
• Some inconsistency b/n "rear guard" and "rearguard".
• There is a minor inconsistency in the presentation of electronically available books in the References section, with some using a "Retrieved / accessed on" date and others not. For instance consider the difference b/n the two Walker references, with one not having a "Retrieved" date and the other not using that field. Given that the works cited are really hardcopy books that are also available electronically I don't believe a "Retrieved / accessed on" date is really req'd but happy to leave this up to you guys as to which way you go (i.e. to remove them all, or add them where they are missing). (At anyrate this is a very minor a nitpick so feel free to disregard altogether as I'm sure its not a GA req, although it might be a minor issue at FA).
• Most ISBNs are presented with hyphens, while one is not (Lunney and Finch), so you might consider adding hyphens for consistency (again minor nitpick / suggestion only).
• The United States Far Eastern Command reference is missing publisher and location.
• In some places you use "Canberra, Australian Capital Territory" and in others just "Canberra".
• I made a few minor edits so far, pls see here [4]. Anotherclown (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, thanks for starting this, I think I've gotten all of these. These are my edits: [5] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes they look fine. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Technical review

• Citations:: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
• Disambiguations: no dabs - [6] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [7] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: Some of the images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it for consistency (although its not a GA requirement) - [8] (no action required)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [9] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Article is well written and MOS compliant.

• 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):

  • All major aspects appear to have been covered.
  • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

• 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':

  • Images are appropriate for article and are PD and mostly seem to have the req'd documentation.
    • Does File:Matilda_AWM071377.jpeg need a PD US tag?
      • Yes, I've added this now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article is in good shape, only one very minor query about an image tag. Anotherclown (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Done now, passing. Sorry this took so long [insert mediocre sob story]. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)