Talk:Battle of Goodenough Island/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * external links all work;
 * images lack alt text. It is not a GA requirement, but you might consider adding it in;
 * spot checks revealed no copyright violations (I checked McCarthy, Tanaka and Dexter).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I made a number of edits, please check that you are happy with these and adjust if necessary;
 * "On 7 August five Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P-40 Kittyhawks of No. 76 Squadron made forced landings". The link here for No. 76 Squadron seems to go to No. 75 Squadron. Is this correct?
 * in the Aftermath, "Over the next two days Japanese bombers attacked..." Over which days? I think you mean the next two days after the 4 March 1943, but because the sentence is separated from the date by another two sentences, it is a little unclear. I wonder if it can be reworded/reworked slightly to make it clearer.


 * 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):
 * in the Aftermath, this "The 2/12th Infantry Battalion remained on the island until the end of December..." is followed by "the small Australian occupation force used". Who provided this small occupation force once the 2/12th had gone? Do the sources say?
 * in the Aftermath, I didn't quite get the the reason for this: "The plans to develop Goodenough Island had to be postponed." Was it because of the need for resources around Buna? If so, I wonder if it could be made clearer with a brief clause or sentence in that paragraph.


 * 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.


 * 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:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, I believe that this meets the Good Article criteria and has the potential to one day be a Featured Article; there are just a couple of minor points that I think need tweaking/clarifying before it can be promoted. I'm happy to discuss anything you disagree with in my review, but as I said I will be offline next week until Saturday 24 March. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)