Talk:5th Parachute Brigade (United Kingdom)/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of reviewing this article against the GA criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * ext links all work;
 * images lack alt text. It is not a GA requirement, but you may consider adding it in before taking the article beyond this review;
 * the automated copyright checking tools appear to be down. I've done some Google spot checks and nothing showed up as concerning, so there are no issues WRT copyright for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * slightly inconsistent: sometimes "7th Parachute Battalion" and sometimes "7th Battalion" (same with 12th and 13th Battalion as well) - perhaps needs consistency (in the D-Day section)
 * ✅ It's a bit awkward, but I've replaced every instance of Xth Battalion with Xth Parachute Battalion, except where the battalion wasn't a parachute one. (That was a lot of replacements.) There's no other practical way to get consistency, since there's at least one instance of a 12th (non-Parachute) Battalion being involved in the same sentence as a 12th Parachute Battalion (and a few other similar problems). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "anti tank" and "anti-tank"? Currently the article uses both;
 * ✅ changed to "anti-tank" throughout --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * the article presents "6 Pounder", but I'm wondering if it should be "6 pounder"?
 * ✅ changed to "6 pounder" throughout --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "house to house" or "house-to-house"?
 * ✅ for consistency with 3rd Parachute Brigade --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "launched fifteen separate assaults to try to retake the" - should it be "15" per WP:MOSNUM?
 * "defended by around a hundred infantry with tank and artillery support" - should it be "100" per above?
 * ❌ Keeping these both as is, per WP:ORDINAL and for consistency --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's not major and maybe I don't understand the policy correctly. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * " round the clock" - should this be hyphenated?
 * ✅ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fowler, pp.41 59" (note # 29) - should this be "Fowler, pp.41–59" or "Fowler, pp.41 and 59"?
 * Its two pages changed to Fowler, p.41, p.59


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues.


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues - has been a bit of recent work, but mainly as part of improving this to GA standard.


 * 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:
 * Good use of images to illustrate article. There are a couple of licencing issues that I think need clarification, though (please see below);
 * "File:Map for 6th Airborne Divsion Normandy June 1944.GIF": - I'm not sure about this one - I think it might need an OTRS ticket
 * "File:Map advance to the Seine.gif" - same as above;
 * "File:Map Germany.GIF" - same as above.
 * OTRS pending added to all files, I could also use is Attribution? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jim. Thanks for this - I think that the OTRS ticket is the best way to go. I'm happy to pass the article while the process is pending. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Generally looks quite good. Just a couple of minor prose/MOS issues and a couple of image licencing issues to fix/clarify before promotion. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After a few edit conflicts I seem to have been getting gazumped by Demiurge1000 (THANKS). I think these are all done. See the license reply. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as well I didn't get an edit conflict while adding 57 instances of the word "Parachute", I would've exploded :-)


 * I think the one outstanding one is whether it's page 41 and 59 of Fowler, or page 41 to 59. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes now done. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you for your responses, I'm happy to pass the article now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)