Talk:Bougainville counterattack/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 05:57, 3 September 2016 (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: Most 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 link to be removed.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I think there may be a word missing here: "Barbed wire was a 22,500-yard (20,600 m)-long perimeter..."
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "These troops were divided into three separate infantry units..." would "battle groups" be more accurate term than "infantry units" (as they seem to have had several arms, i.e. infantry, artillery and engineers etc)? (suggestion only)
 * I've tweaked this to "groups" to take this into account. I think that "battle group" is something of an anachronism as the term wasn't used by Japan at the time. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good option to me (I was concerned about the anachronistic aspect of my suggestion but couldn't extract a better idea from my grey matter at the time). Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "... and was equipped with four 15 cm howitzers, two 10 cm howitzers, eighteen 7 cm infantry guns and an unconfirmed number of 7.5 cm mountain guns..." is any of this equipment able to be wikilinked?
 * I've linked these where possible, but there are several different types of 15 cm howitzers and 7.5 cm mountain guns to choose from and the source is unspecific about what type they were - and given the IJA's practices they realistically could have been of any type. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, one can only do so much. Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Likewise here "...received a battery of 75mm pack howitzers on 3 March..." and here "...six of these units were equipped with 105mm howitzers and the other two operated 155mm howitzers..." and here "...and eight batteries of 90mm anti-aircraft guns..."? (i.e. wikilinks)
 * Done - thanks to the US Army's pretty strict standardisation practices, that was much easier! Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "General Beightler, the commander of the 37th Division...", remove rank here per WP:SURNAME.
 * Given the amount of text which passes between the general being introduced and his name being used to open a paragraph, I think that this is OK - just the last name looks a bit odd in this context. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy with that. Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Repetitive wording here: "Early the following day, Japanese indirect fire opened the fighting early..." (early x 2)
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps wikilink "flamethrowers", "bazookas" and "M4 tanks"?
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 seem to be covered that I could see. A few minor points:
 * "The Iwasa Unit's attack on the perimeter was delayed until 9 March...." do the sources say why it was delayed?
 * No, the source says that the reason is unknown. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem then. Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Americal Division requested permission to withdraw, but the US corps commander did not assent to this request, ordering them to continue to hold the position." Do the sources include a reason / justification for this insistence?
 * The source doesn't say. I've tweaked the text to clarify things a little bit. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 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:
 * Images are appropriate for article and are PD and have the req'd documentation.
 * Captions look ok.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article looks very good to me. Only a few fairly minor points above, otherwise I'd say its ready for promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your detailed review. do you have any further changes to those I've made? Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to help of cse. All those changes look fine to me. I'll give AR a chance to look it over and make any changes / cmts but this looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, gents, I've got nothing at the moment. Having a bad afternoon (mentally). Nick, thanks for covering off on this. If anything else is needed, I will try to take a look later, but I doubt I can add much more than the simplest of edits in my current funk. For some reason everything seems dark and foreboding today and all I see before me are those no longer here. Sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I know it must be hard but try to look after yourself mate (and everybody else [that you don't care about] can go get stuffed in my book). Anyway passing now as there is nothing else to cover off on by my count. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)