Talk:3rd Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 12:36, 6 October 2011 (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: three dab links :
 * Amfreville ✅ Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Battery ✅ - fixed by User:BD2412 --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * River Ems ✅ - fixed --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Linkrot: External links all check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working so will AGF and conduct spot checks (no action required).
 * Spotchecks complete using Google searches. No issues with copyright found. Anotherclown (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Missing word here perhaps: "The brigade first went into action in June 1944 in Operation Tonga, part of the Normandy landings." Perhaps consider rewording to "The brigade first went into action during Operation Tonga in June 1944, as part of the Normandy landings."
 * I've changed this to "The brigade first went into action in June 1944 during Operation Tonga, part of the Normandy landings." - the operation, rather than the brigade, was part of the landings. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This sentence seems a little awkward to me: "With the war over, the brigade, still part of the 6th Airborne Division, was sent to the British mandate of Palestine in October 1945. Carrying out an internal security role, the brigade remained in Palestine until it was disbanded in 1947." As a suggestion consider: "Still part of the 6th Airborne Division, with the war over, the brigade was sent to the British mandate of Palestine in October 1945. Carrying out an internal security role, it remained in Palestine until it was disbanded in 1947."
 * I've reworded this as "Still part of the 6th Airborne Division, the brigade was sent to the British mandate of Palestine in October 1945 after the end of the war. Carrying out an internal security role, it remained in Palestine until it was disbanded in 1947." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This could be made more clear: "They could also expect artillery support from a battery of howitzers from the 53rd (Worcester Yeomanry) Airlanding Light Regiment, although it was not part of the brigade." Consider: "During operations the artillery support available to the brigade would also include a battery of howitzers from the 53rd (Worcester Yeomanry) Airlanding Light Regiment, although it was not part of the brigade..." or something similar. (suggestion only)
 * ✅ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider reordering the sentence: "From around 00:50 the rest of the brigade, transported in 108 C-47 Dakotas, along with 17 Horsa gliders carrying their heavy equipment, arrived in Normandy after crossing the English Channel." Perhaps try: "From around 00:50 the rest of the brigade arrived in Normandy after crossing the English Channel, transported in 108 C-47 Dakotas, along with 17 Horsa gliders carrying their heavy equipment."
 * ✅ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Fighting was now concentrated around the Château Saint Come..." I think this should be "The fighting was now concentrated around the Château Saint Come..."
 * ✅, although I don't think there's much in it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Should "house to house" be hypenated, i.e. "house-to-house"?
 * The former isn't wrong, but I've changed it anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Inconsistent capitalisation of "brigade headquarters". In places you use lower case and in others you capitalise as "Brigade Headquarters". IMO the latter is more correct.
 * I've gone for "brigade headquarters" throughout. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple issues here: "It was during the landing that the Victoria Cross was awarded to one of the Canadian medics, Corporal Topham, the only recipient from the division during the war." Firstly Topham's full name should be used at first instance to formally introduce him per WP:SURNAME. Secondly was the award made during the action as you have written, or was it made later for the act which occurred during the fighting described? Perhaps consider something like: "It was during the landing that one of the Canadian medics, Corporal Frederick Topham, performed the action for which he was later awarded the Victoria Cross; the only recipient from the division during the war."
 * I've gone for "It was during the landing that one of the Canadian medics, Corporal Frederick Topham, won a Victoria Cross, becoming the division's only recipient of the award during the war." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "A hand to hand battle ensued..." → "A hand-to-hand battle ensued..."
 * Again, not wrong, but I've changed it anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a little awkward: "A hand to hand battle ensued, lasting 18 hours, and by midnight, with all three battalions involved, the town was secured with around 300 prisoners taken." Perhaps consider: "A hand-to-hand battle ensued with all three battalions involved; however, after 18 hours of fighting, the town was secured with around 300 prisoners taken by midnight." (suggestion only)
 * Changed to "A hand-to-hand battle ensued, lasting 18 hours and eventually drawing in all three battalions; by midnight the town was secured, with around 300 prisoners taken." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "half empty" → "half-empty" as its an adjective (I think).
 * ✅ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Extensive use of WP:RS, with all main points appropriately cited.
 * No issues with WP:OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage seems fine to me, one very minor point:
 * "but just as they approached the bridge it was blown up..." by whom? The Germans I assume, could this be clarified?
 * Presumably they didn't see who blew it up, so we'll never know - but I've added "by the Germans" :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issue with POV.


 * 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 appear to be PD, and the maps are all licenced.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Another good article for sure, just a few issues with prose and MOS to resolve or discuss first. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues should now be addressed, notes as above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changes look good, passing review now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and to Demiurge1000 for fixing the points. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)