Talk:39th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 July 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: images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not a GA requirement - suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no repeatlinks (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "the battalion landed at Plymouth on 18 July 1916", what country? Some readers might not be aware it is in the United Kingdom as it is not clear from the text.
 * repetitive language here: "...the battalion suffered a high number of casualties following a German gas attack which subsequently resulted in the battalion..." (the battalion twice)
 * prose is a little awkward here: "... while the second, which was a disastrous failure...", consider more simply: " while the second was a disastrous failure..."
 * I wonder if "compulsory training scheme" might be wikilinked to Conscription in Australia to provide some further context to interested readers (probably could do so in similar articles you have written)
 * "...including a new commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel William Owen...", Owen should be wikilinked here I think.
 * Wonder if there should be a wikilink to Battle of Buna–Gona in the "Fighting around Gona and disbandment" section so that readers wanting more info about this episode might be able to access it more easily?
 * Some place names should be wikilinked: Koitaki, Efogi, Eora Creek, Soputa, Wau
 * ref: "Paterson 1934, p. 92 & 237." should this be "pp"?


 * 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):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without unnecessary detail.
 * Effectively uses summary style to cover a broad span of events in which the bn was involved.


 * 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 mostly seem ok. One issue:
 * "(Left to right): Kessels, Porter, Fleay, Owen, Findlay – Lieutenant Colonel Owen, CO of the 39th Battalion with his second-in-command Major Findlay – July 1942" Many of these officers have not been introduced in the article so we don't really know who they are. I wonder if they even need to be mentioned? The relevance of this image to me is the it includes Own and Findlay so perhaps the caption might be reduced to focus on them? The others should of course be mentioned in the file detail (suggestion only).

This is an excellent article in my opinion, completed to a high standard with obvious attention to detail. I was particularly impressed by the legacy section. Only a few minor issues / suggestions above to deal with or discuss but otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * G'day, thanks for taking this review on. I think I've covered off on everything now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Changes look fine - good work adding Honner too (I should have picked that up). Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)