Talk:2/7th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:25, 11 December 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 req'd)
 * Disambiguations: no dabs - (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: No dead links - (no action req'd).
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding - (suggestion only, not a GA req)
 * 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):
 * Prose is a little repetitive here: "The 2/7th Battalion[Note 2] was raised on 25 October 1939 at Puckapunyal, Victoria, as part of the all volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force that was raised..." ("was raised" x 2 in same sentence)
 * Same here: "...against the hastily established Allied defensive positions, forcing the British and Commonwealth troops to hastily withdraw..." ("hastily" x 2)
 * "...heavy air attack as the Germans heavily..." ("heavy" and "heavily")
 * "...This was subsequently undertaken in Palestine under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Henry Guinn,[24] before the 2/7th was sent to Syria to undertake..." ("undertaken")
 * No MOS issues that I could see.


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


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major aspects seem to be covered that I could see. Only a couple of minor points:
 * You might consider adding the battalion's casualty figures to some of the campaign descriptions (some have it others don't). From Johnston The Proud 6th:
 * Libya: 15 KIA, 2 DOW, 3 DOAS, 75 WIA, 1 POW (p. 242)
 * Greece: 5 KIA, 3 DOW, 0 DOAS, 7 WIA, 65 POW (p. 243)
 * Creete: 27 KIA, 0 DOW, 1 DOAS, 70 WIA, 433 POW (p. 243)
 * Papua: 5 KIA, 1 DOW, 0 DOAS, 4 WIA, 0 POW (p. 244)
 * Wau-Salamaua: 69 KIA, 19 DOW, 5 DOAS, 221 WIA, 0 POW (p. 244)
 * Aitape-Wewak: 22 KIA, 11 DOW, 5 DOAS, 95 WIA, 0 POW (p. 244)
 * 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 POV issues.
 * Article seems to reflect the sources available.


 * 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.
 * Captions look ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks quite good to me and I don't have much to add on top of Cinderella157's comments (below). Just a few minor points above to address from my point of view. Also I made a few minor edits . Anotherclown (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten all of these now. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, passing now. Any further comments for improvements can be discussed on the article talk page. Anotherclown (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cinderella
Lead reads "successfully capturing Bardia and Tobruk". Impies sole responsibility? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggested edit made Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, your solution looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Was there also a Support Company (ie Q/Log/Admin) in the structure as well as HQ coy whih is the equivalent of a contemporary Support Coy? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, no. HQ Coy had the specialist platoons (including Admin). Added something on this. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's correct to my knowledge as well. The ORBAT for an Australian infantry battalion in the Middle East 1941 in my copy of Kuring Redcoats to Cams (p. 494) depicts the structure as described currently in the article (i.e. with an Admin Pl as part of HQ Coy). Anotherclown (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Essentially a mopping up operation, the Aitape–Wewak campaign saw the Australians ..." was the campaign mopping up or just the 2/7th participation? Seem odd to call a mopping-up a campaign? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keogh Chapter 9 describes the whole campaign as a mopping up campaign (same with Bougainville and New Britain). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "During these operations the battalion was involved in capturing Maprik after the 17th Brigade was relieved from defensive duties around Tadji.[6][30]" - doesn't make sense if the 17th Brigade had been relieved. Suggest a transposition of the main phrases if this is accurate? Or is it "after this", the 17th Brigade was relieved? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reworded. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am surprised if "mud over blood" didn't come from WW1 even if this is attributed? Cinderella157 (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Added something on this, although all the battalions with those colours pretty much used that nickname (e.g 39th and 2/23rd for instance). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)