Talk:2/9th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2010 (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: none found - (no action required)
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work - (no action required)
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text (although this is not a requirement for GA anyway so its up to you if you want to add it or not) - (no action required)
 * Added in now. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * This sentence in the lead is a little repetitive: "Raised in Queensland as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) shortly after the outbreak of the war, it served as part of the 18th Brigade and over the course of its service was attached to the 6th, 9th and finally the 7th Division." (specifically "it served" and "its service");
 * This sentence may need a modifier to link it with the previous statement: "With the threat of invasion having passed, the decision was made to redeploy the Australians to North Africa where they might be actively employed in combat operations." Maybe as simple as: "However, with the threat of invasion having passed, the decision was made to redeploy the Australians to North Africa where they might be actively employed in combat operations."
 * Maybe wikilink no mans land?;
 * "the battalion went back into reserve for a bit" sounds a little informal IMO, maybe reword "for a period" or something similar;
 * This paragraph is a little repetitive: "Following this the battalion went back into reserve for a bit, before briefly returning to the Red Line at the start of August.[23] This was short-lived, though, for later in the month the decision was made to withdraw the 18th Brigade from Tobruk and the 2/9th Battalion was subsequently sent to Palestine to undertake training. Later they were transferred to Syria where they undertook occupation duties following the defeat of the Vichy French forces in that country." (specifically "undertake" used twice);
 * This sentence makes it sounds like only the 2/9th was withdrawn to Australia at this time: "In February 1942 the 2/9th was withdrawn back to Australia in response to the threat posed by Japan's entry into the war following the attacks on Pearl Harbor and in Malaya." Obviously the entire 2nd AIF returned to SWPA during this period. Maybe reword to put into this context?;
 * Two paragraphs in the Pacific section start with 'After', maybe reword (repetitive)? and
 * This sentence is a single sentence paragraph: "After taking part in defeating the Japanese at Milne Bay, the battalion was transferred to Oro Bay aboard HMAS Broome and went on to fight at Buna in December and then Sanananda in early January 1943, by which time its strength had fallen from over 600 to just under 100 men due to the effects of tropical diseases and heavy fighting." Maybe merge to the one below it?
 * I think I've gotten all of these now. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Anotherclown (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


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


 * 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':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Only a few issues listed above, otherwise this is another good article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, happy to pass now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)