Wikipedia

Talk:New Guinea Volunteer Rifles/GA1

< Talk:New Guinea Volunteer Rifles
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago30 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 12:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • The article appears to be stable judging from edit history (no action requried)
  • No duplicate links found (no action requried)
  • No disambiguation links found (no action requried)
  • Checklinks reports 301 message for two links (all others fine), but manual inspection confirms the links are in order (no action requried)
  • Copyvio Detector reports no problems with the article (no action requried)
  • All images have proper licences, sourcing and captions (no action requried)
  • Prose sourcing seems to be entirely in order, except:
    • Does Sinclair 1992, p. 7. support the entire list or the entire "Commanding officers" section? Current layout leads me to assume it might pertain to Lieutenant Colonel P. Cole only.
    • Even though it is no dealbreaker here, you might consider using inline citation style in the "notes" section matching the rest of the prose. Thoughts?
  • Shouldn't militia be lowercase in "...raising of a Militia battalion in New Guinea..."?
    • Militia was the name of the Australian Army Reserve at the time, so I think as a proper noun it needs to be capitalized. Thoughts? Anotherclown (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Oh, I did not know that. Well, since it is a proper noun then, it need be capitalized. I only looked at the piped link "Citizens Military Force" and it never occurred to me that CMF was anything but a descriptive term. Since "Australian Army Reserve" article clearly explains that Militia is a name applied to the AAR (for those who follow the link) - I trust it's proper to capitalize the term.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Please wikilink Rabaul and Port Moresby. I had no idea where Rabaul is located, perhaps it would be of use to non-expert readers to link the toponyms
  • Ditto for Timor, Ambon (I assume that's Ambon Island), Vunakanau, Lakunai, Caroline Islands.
  • Even though I happen to know whereabouts of Luzon and South China Sea, some readers might benefit from a wikilink, so you might consider adding those too
  • In "Initial preparations" subsection, the article specifies 23 officers and 482 other ranks as establishment of NGVR in June 1940 and that this figure was never reached. Still, only a month later, the deployments of "226 men based at Rabaul, 151 at Wau, 85 at Bulolo, 39 at Salamaua and 19 at Madang" yield 15 men more than the establishment specified in the month before that. Is there a typo in the figures somewhere or is the assessment that the "figure was never reached" not quite accurate?

I'll continue the review of the prose (Salamaua–Lae–Wau subsection and further down) later on today. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Resuming:

  • There are four mentions of Bulldog Track and one of "Bulldog" - is that Bulldog Track or something else? Also, the wikilink should be at the first mention of the term.
  • In As Major Fleay attempted to juggle his forces and relieve the exhausted NGVR detachments, ... "Major" should be omitted per WP:SURNAME
  • I'd wikilink Gona and Mubo - I imagine few people, outside New Guinea and experts, know where they are
  • The prose says that "approximately 600 to 850 men are believed to have served with the unit", while the infobox specifies circa 600-850 men as size of the unit. I may have gotten this wrong, but to me the prose states that a total of 600-850 men served in the NGVR at some point during the war (some of them probably throughout the war) and the infobox entry means the unit size varied from 600 to 850 in the same timeframe. I know this is nitpicking but, elsewhere in the prose there's 520 NGVR troops (as noted above in the review), and 300 NGVR troops estimated in April 1943. I trust the infobox figure should be adjusted to either "300-850" or something along those lines.
  • I'd also wikilink Samarai and Goroka
  • I'm a bit confused about use of acronym "PNG". In the lead it is noted as an acronym for Papua New Guinea, but only at the sixth instance of the name. Afterwards, PNG is not used until post-war subsection. I thought at first that this was in order to distinguish between the independent nation of Papua New Guinea and pre-1975 Papua New Guinea, but the PNG acronym resurfaced in 1962 related material in the post-war subsection. Could you please clarify?
  • I'd also link Vietnam War
  • I'm aware that country names are seldom wikilinked if the countries are still around, but I trust Japan/Japanese could be wikilinked to the Empire of Japan
  • Regimental Colours are noted in the infobox, but not in the prose. The info also lacks a reference to support the description of Regimental Colours appearance. Can this be remedied?

This is a great article! Kudos for great work. There's very little standing in the way of GA promotion the matter of the unit size in the infobox, Regimental Colours reference, some clarification on PNG acronym use and my nagging about wikilinks I'd prefer to have. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

AR, thanks for chipping in. This is now down to unit size indicated in the infobox only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Think all these are done now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Indeed they are. Passing nom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for your time, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Guinea_Volunteer_Rifles/GA1&oldid=579598356"