Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 03:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links all check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images all have alt text (no action required).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose might need to be improved here: "Upon establishment, the regiment had an authorised strength of 25 officers and 497 other ranks, who were organised into a regimental headquarters, three squadrons, each of which consisted of six troops." For instance consider instead: "Upon establishment, the regiment had an authorised strength of 25 officers and 497 other ranks, who were organised into a regimental headquarters and three squadrons, each of which consisted of six troops."
 * Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wording here: "...but were involved in fighting off a number of sharp engagements." Could this perhaps be written better as: "...but were involved in fighting off a number of sharp attacks."
 * Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Following this, the 12th were sent back to the rear to rest, arriving at the railhead at El Ferdan...", railhead should be wikilinked earlier in the text (at first appearance).
 * Well spotted. Moved. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an inconsistency in the presentation of "Machine-Gun Section", in some places you use "machine-gun section". Pls review and amend if required.
 * Interesting point and one I had to think about. In this case, my take is that grammatically it is correct to use lower case where I have because of the construction "its machine-gun section" is an improper noun group as opposed to "the Machine-Gun Section" which is a proper noun group. Happy to adjust if you think its an issue, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy with that, I had a feeling it was something like this but wanted to check. Anotherclown (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a typo: "...result most of warm weather equipment had been left behind..."? Specifically "most of warm weather". Also should this be really read "cold weather equipment"?
 * Yes, I've fixed this. I really should stop writing when I have a fever! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points are covered without going into undue detail.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * 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 used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This is an excellent regimental history in my opinion, only a couple of fairly minor issues with prose listed above to be dealt with before the review is past. Happy to reconsider any points you disagree with. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for the review. I think I've responded to all your points. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Passing now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)