Talk:Special Air Service Regiment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I think the fair use rationale template on File:Aus-sasr.svg needs tweaking. No doubt it is fair use and the rationale is fine, it should just be presented in the current template format. It will only draw the crabs at ACR. The number of fair use images is probably at the outer limit, but on balance, I think the secrecy of the Regiment and lack of photographs wins (pun intended). If taking it to ACR I'd get Nikkimaria to have a look first.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Listing, all points addressed.

Comments

• Checklinks identifies a couple of links that could do with some attention. One is to Jane's which requires registration. Not that it is a GA requirement, but if you are planning to take this to ACR you might want to fix them and formalise the website links as part of the References?
• Just a few more things to check. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• I've made a couple of recommendations about the images and the web links, but they are not war-stoppers for GA. @Dank: Dan, would you be able to look at the prose? I looked at it myself when I assessed it for B-Class, and I think I'm too familiar with the content, and I'm just not seeing where it could be improved. If not, no biggie. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• Copyediting now. Please replace single quotes throughout by double quotes.
• "two troops were again placed on standby": Consistency between articles may be needed here; readers will be confused if we say for instance "40,000 troops were deployed" in one article and "two troops were again placed on standby" in another article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest using something like "a force of 40,000". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• "low key": informal
• "Christmas Island": link it, so readers won't get confused with the other Christmas Island
• "(4 RAR (Commando))": MOS has a problem with "))"
  • Perhaps a note to clarify, and use 4 RAR in the body?
• I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at East Timor, the Philippines and Fiji. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much, Dan! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you, much appreciated. I made a couple of tweaks and left edit summaries [1] - happy to discuss though if you disagree. Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • No objections. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• suggest you link troop and Trooper (rank), and explain that trooper is the rank of private soldiers in SASR.
• Horner and Thomas detail a range of organisations that were the Australian forebears of the SASR, and M Special Unit should definitely be included. Perhaps a bit more info (including from Horner and Thomas) regarding the Regiment's WWII forebears wouldn't go astray, including the Coastwatchers.
• "Z Force" is a bit informal, the unit names were Z Special Unit and M Special Unit. I know a couple of old boys that hate being referred to as being a member of "Z Force", strangely enough. The articles are at those titles, so perhaps the names and links should be per the article titles.
• Suggestion only. As there is no article about the Blackhawk accident, more information on it (and the controversy) should probably be added if this is going to ACR.
• 4 Squadron sort of re-appears without warning.
• It is probably worth clarifying that the Regiment has no link to the RAR since it achieved regimental status.
• I am done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Gday, thanks for spending the time looking over this article. Some excellent points and hopefully I have addressed most of them now - pls see my changes here [2]. I don't want to add too much about the Blackhawk crash as I think it might result in undue weight. Interestingly Horner 2002 only gives the incident just under two pages of coverage. Probably wont take to ACR but if I do I'll see what else could be added. Anyway when you get a chance pls let me know if anything else is required. Anotherclown (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, a pleasure. All good, listing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)