Talk:28th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 19:19, 18 April 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 errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action req'd)
 * Alt text: All images use alt text (no action req'd).
 * 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:
 * battle honours ✅

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * typo here..."who had been intended to a sub unit within the 24th..." (to provide / to form?)
 * this seems a little awkwardly worded: "...the final decision to evacuate was still to be made and so the 7th Brigade was dispatched in early September..." (particularly "and so").
 * Repeated phrasing here: "At this time, the AIF was reorganised and expanded in preparation for future operations. Two new infantry divisions were formed at this time..." ("at this time" twice in proximity).
 * repeated word here: "...based in East Perth with sub-units based at Albany..." (based twice, perhaps just delete the second instance?)
 * All ✅


 * 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.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues I could see, covers all major points without unnecessary detail.
 * In the lead "...before seeing action against the Japanese in the New Britain campaign..." Maybe just add the year this occurred for context? ✅


 * 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 all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
 * Captions seem ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Good work - only a couple of minor nitpicks above to work through. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy with your changes, I also made a few tweaks so pls review and revert if you disagree. Passing now though as the article clearly meets the GA criteria in my opinion. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy with your tweak; sorry I missed that. Thanks for your review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)