Talk:Battle of Suoi Chau Pha/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (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
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * no external links broken;
 * images lack alt text - you might consider adding it in, although it is not a GA requirement.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * some of the unit names are presented in italics and others are not. I think that they should all be consistent and as such would probably recommend removing the italics;
 * be careful with presenting abbreviations for units, for instance "2RAR" and "6RAR" are mentioned without being formally introduced in full;
 * "with total Australian troop strength in Vietnam now reaching 6,300 men..." (I think "now" creates a tense issue - I think it should be "at the time" or "then" or something similar);
 * sometimes you have "search and destroy" and then later "search-and-destroy" (these should be consistent);
 * "had been destroyed by recent operations..." (I think "recent" creates a tense issue - I think it should be "previous");
 * suggestion wikilinking "section", "company" and "battalion" etc. on first mention - so that readers know what sized units these are;
 * you abbreviate "CMF", but you need to formally introduce it;
 * you abbreviate "RAAF", but you need to formally introduce it first;
 * in the Battle section, I think that this sentence should be split in to two: "A Company, 7RAR had already been patrolling in the Hat Dich since 3 August when the orders for the operation were issued, and they were subsequently re-supplied by helicopter early on the evening of 5 August with the supplies successfully unloaded and the helicopters departing within three minutes utilising an insertion technique perfected by the Special Air Service Regiment";
 * in the References section, is there an ISBN or similar for the Penniman source?
 * Cheers, made all these changes now. No ISBN for Penniman AFAIK (been looking ever since I added it to the article). Anotherclown (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well referenced, IMO, and I think all or most major works have been consulted and discrepancies discussed.


 * 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):
 * "The results were disappointing nonetheless..." (Only minor, but I suggest re-wording as this could be taken as a POV statement - it probably wouldn't need too much tweaking to rectify the issue);


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Some recent work, but nothing constituting an edit war, IMO.


 * 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 seem appropriately licenced to me.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, I think this is a good article, although I have listed a couple of issues that I think need to be addressed before it can be passed for GA. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)