Talk:2/3rd 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) 00:00, 11 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: One dead link - :
 * The Lost Battalion: 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (info) [vicnet.net.au] ✅
 * Alt text: The images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - (no action required)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing  (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate link to be removed.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the lead: "The 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion was formed on June 1940..." → "in June 1940"?
 * "Raised in 1940 under the command...." seems a little redundant as you already mentioned its formation in June 1940 in the previous sentence.
 * Repetitive language here: "A small number of the battalion's personnel returned to Australia and the battalion..." → "A small number of the battalion's personnel returned to Australia and it..."
 * Some inconsistency in usage of both "World War II" and "Second World War" (you also use "World War I").
 * Wikilink SS Île de France
 * Repetitive phrasing here: "...at the time and as a result of heavy censorship not widely reported in Australia at the time..." ("at the time" x 2)
 * "...Singapore had fallen..." perhaps wikilink for context?
 * "...with a squadron of British Hussars..." perhaps find a relevant wikilink for this to explain to readers that don't know what such a unit would be?
 * Wikilink carriers, Bren guns, Thompson sub-machine guns etc., fifth columnists, anti-tank rifles, Cowra, Deception Bay
 * "The battalion lost 202 men killed or died on active service...." This sentence starts a bit abruptly and lacks some context. Perhaps instead: "During the war the battalion lost 202 men killed or died on active service..."
 * Done all of the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a minor c/e and fixed some typos, my edits are here.
 * Thanks for those, there were a few, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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. A couple of minor points / suggestions:
 * Are casualties available in any source by campaign? From my own research I know that unfortunately there is nothing available in the divisional histories of the 6th and 7th Divisions (i.e. Johnston's The Proud 6th and The Silent 7th) but thought I'd ask.
 * Added Syria cas from Wigmore now. Nothing solid on Java. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnston The Proud 6th p. 219 actually describes the 2/3rd MG Bn as "a corps unit attached to the division in this campaign" (Aitape-Wewak), which explains the lack of coverage. Throughout the articles you've written on the 2nd AIF MG Bns I don't recall if you specifically spell out the command relationship they had to the divisions to which they were attached in explicit terms so I wonder if this description by Johnston might need to be considered for incorporation?
 * Added, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 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, except for one minor issue:
 * "A Vickers machine-gun team from the 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion in Syria, October 1941" (inconsistent hyphenation of "machine-gun")
 * It's a compound adjective, but for consistency I've removed it. I'm not sure about fixing these all one day... AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks in fine shape to me, just a few points regarding prose and C2 listed above to consider / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, thanks for your review. I think I've gotten all of these now. These are my edits: . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good to me, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)