Talk:2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:39, 1 August 2015 (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 issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd).
 * Linkrot: one dead link :
 * 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion: Unit Appointments (info) [ordersofbattle.com]
 * Removed, the site seems to drop in and out a lot. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I wonder if it should be introduced as an Australian battalion in the lead?
 * This is a little repetitive: " It was later transferred to the Middle East, and later..." (later twice - you also use the word two or 3 times more in the same paragraph)
 * Wikilink Darling Harbour, Fremantle, Cape Town, Freetown, Gourock, Colchester, Glasgow
 * Likewise wikilink some of the Greek placenames (where you can determine what page to link to)
 * Wikilink Gaza and "Vichy French" (some readers will not understand what Vichy France was), Damascus
 * Wikilink Deception Bay, Brisbane, Port Moresby, Townsville, Oro Bay,
 * G'day, I think I've got these. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is sufficiently referenced to WP:RS, with the article seemingly reflecting the sources available.
 * No issues with OR I could see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail, making effective use of summary style.
 * All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * 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 seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Only some minor issues (mostly wikilinks and a dead url) that I could spot on this one, otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed everything now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, closed as successful now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)