Talk:Australian Army during World War I/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 23:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I will look to post a review today or tomorrow. I have performed a few edits, but I believe that these are minor enough (mainly wording tweaks or formatting) to not constitute significant involvement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments/suggestions:
 * in the lead, " The First Australian Imperial Force (AIF) was the army's..." --> should "army's" be capitalized here as it is talking about a single, specific army?
 * be careful of using the word "subsequently"...I know I also use it a lot, but the advice at A-class and FAC these days is to avoid it if possible. I think currently there are 15 instances in the article, so you could probably reduce it a little;
 * the link for Regular army should be moved to the first mention of the word "regular";
 * link Royal Australian Engineers;
 * note 34, "The Age " should probably be in italics;
 * in the References section, is there a way to make the link for the ADB articles appear in the chapter area, rather than the overall work? Currently the link looks like it is just a generic link to the ADB, but in fact it is a link to the specific entry;
 * not a GA requirement, but some of your ISBNs are hyphenated, and others aren't;
 * "were originally bound for England to undergo further training prior to employment on the Western" --> per the peer review, it should probably be clarified that the main reason for going to Egypt was the lack of accommodation and equipment in England. As you say, there are sources that say both, so I think we could probably just work both into it
 * "Some artillery units continued to support British and American units into November, and the AFC maintained flying operations until the end of the war". I'd suggest taking this out of the note, and just putting it into the body;
 * "Beaumont, Joan, ed. (1995). Australia's War, 1914–1918. Sydney" appears twice in the References
 * inconsistent: compare "1st ed" to "Second ed" in the References. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * in the Further reading section: "Sydney: Pan Macmillan" --> inconsistent with "Sydney, New South Wales: Hachette Australia"
 * while it is not a GA requirement, you may consider adding alt text:
 * there appear to be a couple of dead links: Are you able to add archiveurls for them?
 * "File:BL 6 inch MK VII gun 5 August 1914 Fort Nepean.jpeg": probably needs a US image licence
 * "File:AN&MEF embarkation.jpeg": same as above
 * "File:BL 6 inch MK VII gun 5 August 1914 Fort Nepean.jpeg": same as above
 * "File:1stAustralianDivisionHooge5October1917.jpeg": same as above
 * "File:Chateauwood.jpg": same as above. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * inconsistent: "Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey" v. "Warrior (155). Oxford: Osprey". AustralianRupert (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * suggest adding this work to the Further reading section:
 * be careful of consistency of terminology. For instance, in many cases you say Turkish, but in one or two you say Ottoman. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gday thanks for taking this one on. Some excellent points - I've got most of these now except the alt text (might give that a miss for now and add it if I take this to ACR). Re the dead links - I think there is something wrong with the tool as they still seem to be reporting as dead but seem to work???? Re the AIF being used in the Middle East vs going to the Western Front initially I've add a note on this now. Does this work? Anotherclown (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've added the alt text for you. The note works well, in my opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers for doing this, sorry I was being lazy and should have done it myself. Self administering upper cuts. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


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


 * 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':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Having reviewed this at peer review, and again now, I am quite satisfied that this article meets the GA criteria. Well done and thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all your help with this, I know you are busy with work and family so I really appreciate you taking the time for a comprehensive review (both here and at PR). You picked up quite a few things I should have got right myself. Anotherclown (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)