Talk:23rd Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 06:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * No disamb links
 * All external links checked ok
 * In the inf box Decorations 1 VC - I always considered this field was for the unit not individual awards and obviously they received more decorations than that
 * I've removed it. I usually don't put the individual decorations in there either, but I must have forgotten to remove it when I started expanding the article. Regarding the total decorations that the battalion's members received, the usual sources actually don't seem to identify this for the 23rd Bn. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heliopolis is not linked but it goes to a disamb page - do you know which is the correct link?
 * Yes, I've added the link now. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Turkish lines / Ottoman lines - see Talk:29th Battalion (Australia)/GA1
 * Changed, although as stated at 29th Bn, I do think the term Turk would have been used by those that were there at the time. Doesn't mean that they were right, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * before being relieved by the 3rd Battalion - I can see its linked but would 3rd Battalion (AIF) be clearer to the reader
 * I went with the more traditional "Australian 3rd Battalion". AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * fell upon their form-up point prior to the attack - this may be different army's terms but I always used forming-up point.
 * I've changed this to "waiting line", as that is the term used by the source. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know why the junior battalion took precedence when forming the 23rd/21st Battalion
 * Not sure, sorry. Please see my comment on the Talk:29th Battalion (Australia)/GA1. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

On hold
Well done as normal, I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jim, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I think I've responded to everything. Let me know if there is anything else. It is Friday afternoon here, and for the first time in about six months, I have a weekend without work, so if you can get back to me today or tomorrow I can make anymore fixes you feel are necessary. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)