Talk:26th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 04:13, 11 December 2014 (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 issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: no dead links (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA requirement, suggestion only).
 * Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: one duplicate link to be removed:
 * "Battle honours".
 * Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "it formed part of the 7th Brigade, which was attached to 2nd Division..." missing definite article here: i.e. "the 2nd Division".
 * Repetitive prose here: "in late August they advanced on the brigade's left during an attack at Biaches which saw the Allies advance..." (advanced and advance), perhaps reword slightly?
 * "Following the outbreak of World War II in September 1939"... World War II is wikilinked here, but you use it in the paragraph above without wikilinking)
 * I think the comma might be out of place here: "Determined Japanese resistance along the Ratsua front, resulted in an amphibious landing..."
 * Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR that I could see.
 * Good use of recently published material.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points are covered with out going into unnecessary detail.
 * "It also adopted the motto, Nunquam non Paratus" - is a translation available for this?
 * Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "'A' Company was detached at this time to Merauke Force..." Where? As you write it was outside Australian territory (and that this was significant for a militia unit) it might help the reader to say it was in the Dutch East Indies.
 * Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues I could see.


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


 * 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 seem to be free / PD and most have the req'd information / templates.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks very good to me, just a few points above to address. Anotherclown (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed all of the points raised. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)