Talk:Gambia Regiment/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Some issues; see below
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Issues


 * Duplicate links: African Distinguished Conduct Medal, Mentioned in Dispatches


 * The abbreviation RWAFF appears without being defined (although we can guess it). It begs a question though: when did the WAFF become Royal?


 * "the Gambia Regiment were put in brigade reserve" -> "the Gambia Regiment was put in brigade reserve"
 * "Pi Chaun" -> " Pi Chaung"


 * "12 miles" Use the convert template to convert to km


 * Link Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
 * Commanding officers and Battle Honours sections are unreferenced. (This is what is really holding up promotion.)


 * Placing article on hold.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for promptly taking a look at the article! I've made all the adjustments you have suggested. I have removed duplicate links, explained (in the interwar section) when the RWAFF gained royal patronage, changed the grammatical errors, put in the convert template (which I didn't even know existed, I'll use this more regularly now), linked Prince Philip, and most importantly, cited the COs and battle honours sections. I have also placed an 'incomplete list' template on the COs section, owing to the fact that it *is* incomplete. If there's anything else, let me know. Jeffrolland (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * All good then. Great to see a subject like this being tackled. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  11:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)