Talk:Military history of Australia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've skim read through this article and it looks like a possible WP:FAC. However, I will only be assessing it against WP:WIAGA. As it's a comprehensive article it could take up to a week to review, but I will try to make it shorter than that. I will be reviewing section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate your time and look forward to your comments. Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's quite an easy article to read. I've got as far as the Second Boer War, I've not checked the citations, but no problems to report so far. Pyrotec (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A wide-ranging summary of the military histor of Australia that readable and well referenced.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. This article appears to be a possible WP:FAC; can I suggest that it is subjected to WP:PR as a first step? Pyrotec (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time with this and for your comments Pyrotec. I have a couple of things I want to do with the article and will then look at a PR, and possibly FAC. Cheers.Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)