Talk:2/15th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:55, 12 June 2016 (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 dabs - (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: No dead links - (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: The bulk of the images have alt text - (no action req'd)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing  (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Some inconsistency in style with "First World War" vs "World War I"
 * "...before being raised as a Militia formation in 1921...", wikilink Militia here
 * Is there a missing word here: "... being from camps in North Africa to Italy and then later Germany..."?
 * Repetitive wording: "several managed to escape either in North Africa, or from Italy, with several..." ("several" x 2 in same sentence)
 * Repetitive wording: "... advance on Finschhafen, during which the 2/15th advanced..." ("advanced" x 2)
 * Is there a missing word here: "... up to brigade level exercises was re-constituted for its next campaign..." ("was re-constituted"?)
 * Missing word here too I think: "... the 2/15th subsequently moved inland and patrolling operations..."
 * "During these patrols there were numerous contacts..." - I wonder if some readers won't know what "contacts" means in this instance? Perhaps clarify?
 * I made a few minor edits / fixed some typos - these are my edits.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the bulk of the sources available for this unit.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major aspects seem to be covered.
 * Casualties by campaign could be included from Johnston That Magnificent 9th:
 * Tobruk including Benghazi Handicap - 45 KIA and DOW, 1 DOAS, 103 WIA and 205 POW (p. 248)
 * Alamein 7 July to 22 October 1942 - 62 KIA, 10 DOW, 180 WIA, 5 POW (p. 248)
 * Alamein 23 October to 5 November - 19 KIA, 13 DOW, 96 WIA, 2 POW (p. 249)
 * New Guinea - 30 KIA, 6 DOW, 4 DOAS, 119 WIA (p. 249)
 * Borneo - 2 KIA, 3 WIA (p. 250)
 * 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 most seem to have the req'd documentation.
 * Captions look ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * No major issues I could see. Probably just needs a minor copy edit and adding of casualties by campaign, otherwise fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these points, I think I've got them all now. These are my changes: Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)