Talk:German attacks on Nauru/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2011 (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 required)
 * Disambiguations: one dab (to Anchorage (disambiguation)) but this seems to be the correct link AFAIK - (no action required)
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work - (no action required)
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - (no action required)
 * Added
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing - (no action required)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is a little short, but probably doesn't require too much to be added. IMO you might consider placing the event in more context but mentioning that it occurred during World War II though (this doesn't appear to be explictly mentioned anywhere).
 * Expanded
 * The title of the article isn't represented in the first sentence. If possible you might attempt to include it in boldface per WP:BOLDFACE.
 * "approximately nine miles south of Nauru", you might consider adding the undefined undefined template to convert the measurement into kilometres for uses unfamiliar with imperial measurements.
 * Done
 * "to contact the Australian authorities. The released prisoners were quickly supplied by the Australian authorities," - this is a little repetitive as you use the phrase "Australian authorities" twice in close proximity. Perhaps reword?
 * Done
 * The date appears to be missing here "cruiser HMAS Manoora arrived off Ocean Island on  January 1941 escorting Trienza".
 * Fixed


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No major issues here, sufficient use of reliable sources.
 * Use of isbns in the short citations seems a little inconsistent with normal style conventions to me. IMO these should be removed from the short cites and added to the long cites in the reference list. e.g. the short cite: "Gill (1957). Royal Australian Navy 1939–1942. pp. 276–277. ISBN 0002174790." should just be "Gill (1957). Royal Australian Navy 1939–1942. pp. 276–277.", while the long citation in the reference list: "Gill, G. Hermon (1957). Royal Australian Navy 1939–1942. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 2 – Navy. Canberra: Australian War Memorial." should become: "Gill, G. Hermon (1957). Royal Australian Navy 1939–1942. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 2 – Navy. Canberra: Australian War Memorial. ISBN 0002174790."
 * Fixed


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major aspects appear to be covered, however is there anything known about the commanders of the German raiders? This information might be added to the background section.
 * As per my comments above you might add also a little more context by mentioning World War II in the Background. This might easily be achieved by rewording the first sentence "Nauru and nearby Ocean Island were important sources of phosphate for Australian and New Zealand fertilizer production and played an important role on both countries agriculture industries during World War II" or something similar.
 * Done


 * 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 seem to check out.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this is another good article. Just a few comments above to deal with/discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that I've now addressed all the above comments. Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this article. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues addressed, very happy with the way you have developed this article. An interesting episode in history. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)