Talk:Operation Coburg/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2011 (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;
 * ext links all work;
 * alt text is present.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "defending the Long Binh-Bien Hoa complex" (should there be an endash between Long Binh and Bien Hoa instead of hyphen?);
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ultimately, Tet was a publicity and media triumph..." (what is the difference between publicity and media? Perhaps just say "publicity triumph");
 * Its been a while since I wrote this but I think I was trying to highlight the role the media played in this so I unless you really think it an issue I think the current wording could probably remain. What do you think? Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense actually. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * overlink of "fire support base";
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * inconsistent capitalisation "Area of Operations" and then "area of operations";
 * I think this might be correct, as in some cases I'm using it as a proper noun (and using caps) and in others it isn't. Am I right? If not of course I will amend per your suggestions. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Sorry, I did this review late last night. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * watch out for the use of single quotation marks ('blah'): the MOS prefers double ("blah");
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Six Australians had been killed and 36 wounded in the engagements to date..." (perhaps change "to date" to "up to that point" or something similar);
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * is this a typo: "while the Long Binh Logistics Deport"? (should it be "Depot"?);
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest wikilinking "troop";
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest wikilinking "M113 armoured personnel carriers";
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest wikilinking "mortar";
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "while they were also able to successfully interdict their withdrawal" (a little confusing about subject - "they" and "their" - perhaps clarify one of these);
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * overlinking of 3rd Cavalry Regiment;
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * inconsistency of terminology: " A Squadron, 3 Cavalry Regiment" and then "3rd Cavalry Regiment";
 * Done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues.


 * 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:
 * the fair use rationales on the images need to be changed so that they reflect the name change that the article underwent. Currently some of them still mention "Battle of Bien Hoa (1968)".
 * Good pick up. Done now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Just a couple of issues to be dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your review. Please have a look at may responses and let me know if any further work is needed. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, looks fine now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks again for taking the time to review, I appreciate it. Anotherclown (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)