Talk:2/4th 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) 01:13, 27 February 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: Ext links all work - (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: Some of the images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it for consistency (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: one duplicate link to be removed:
 * Bren light machine gun (see "manner as light machine guns, such as the Bren")

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "... seeing action in the disastrous fall of Singapore and on Java...", perhaps note that they arrived as reinforcements late in the campaign?
 * "... there was an influx in volunteers for the 2nd AIF...", perhaps consider "... there was an influx of volunteers for the 2nd AIF..."
 * "...the decision was made to only recruit personnel for the 2/4th only from the west..." → "...the decision was made to recruit personnel for the 2/4th only from the west..."
 * "...was on individual training rather than collective..." → "...was on individual rather than collective training..."
 * repetitive prose here: "..initially his requests had been rejected initially..." (initially x 2)
 * "...the battalion received orders to move north to Darwin..." You link Darwin here but it was mentioned earlier so the link should be moved per the MOS.
 * Wikilink SS Westralia (1897)
 * repetitive prose here: "...departure was advanced and so they departed..." (departed and departure)
 * "...concentrated their landing in the Australian 8th Division’s area of responsibility..." (perhaps note that it was understrength with only two brigades available and allocated a very wide frontage?)
 * Is the comma correct here: "...taking their wounded, with them..."?
 * Also I question the comma placement here: "... facing a narrow, peninsula between..."
 * Some inconsistency b/n "machine-gun" and "machine gun" (hyphen vs no hyphen)
 * Typo here I think: "Causeway before the it was finally..."
 * "in Singapore were initially concentrated in Changi prison, in Singapore..." this seems a little redundant to mention Singapore twice.
 * G'day, I think I've fixed all of these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major aspects appear to have been covered.
 * 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 have the req'd documentation.
 * Does File:Sarimbun battle.jpg need a PD US tag?
 * I've just removed it as I wasn't sure if a US tag could actually be applied. It's PD in Australia, most certainly, but not sure about the US. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ack, sorry for the bum steer. I probably know more about the far side of the moon than image policy. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Article is in good shape, mainly just a few prose issues to address. Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I think I've gotten all of these now. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)