Talk:Battle of Madang/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 09:25, 5 December 2017 (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 req'd)
 * Disambiguations: no dabs - (no action req'd)
 * Linkrot: No dead links - (no action req'd).
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it - (suggestion only, not a GA req)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing  (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Slight inconsistency in the infobox with flag for Japanese commander and no flag in Allied column. Perhaps don't need either?
 * I think there might be a missing word here: " the area had been placed Australian administration in 1920 and had subsequently been renamed...".
 * Use of double negative here could probably be improved: "...it was not impassable particularly on foot..."
 * Repetitive wording here: "...terrain is less rugged than the Finisterre Range to the south and there are no especially high features, although the terrain..." ("the terrain").
 * Wording is a little clunky here: "...bypass Saidor following the Landing at Saidor by US troops...", suggest something like "...bypass Saidor following the landing there by US troops..."
 * "In the early stages of the pursuit, the Australians sent long range patrols..." hyphenate "long-range" (per my Macquarie Dictionary at least).
 * "11th Division's divisional carrier company..." perhaps wikilink carrier here to Universal Carrier?
 * "...Several artillery rounds were fired..." I assume by the Japanese at the Australians? Perhaps clarify?
 * "...cracked inaccurately..." language seems a little too descriptive here for an encyclopedia entry.
 * "...since the fighting around Kokoda and Buna–Gona..." maybe add wikilinks here for the Kokoda Campaign and Battle of Buna-Gona?
 * No MOS issues that I could see.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the sources available.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major aspects of the topic seem to be covered that I could see.
 * Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.


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


 * 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:
 * Images are appropriate for article and are PD and have the req'd documentation.
 * Captions look ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This looks pretty good to me, and I only have a few points about prose above. Otherwise I made a few minor edits . Anotherclown (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on, AC. I've made the suggested changes, including adding alt text. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changes look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)