Talk:South West Pacific Area/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Technical review
 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * nine dabs were found by the tools, which should be fixed if possible:
 * All fixed, but the tool server is lagging. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ext links work;
 * images lack alt text. It is not a requirement, but you might consider adding it in;
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * no copyright violations were found through Google searches and spot checks of a couple of the sources that I have access to.


 * Criteria
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I did a little bit of copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my changes;
 * I found the prose a little choppy in places, but nothing major and I believe that it is up to GA standard. It might pay to take a run through yourself if you are considering nominating for ACR;
 * article appears generally MOS compliant.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * well referenced to reliable sources;
 * I spot checked a couple of cites from Long, McCarthy and Dexter and they support what they were being used for.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Overall good coverage, without going into excessive detail.
 * I wonder if this shouldn't be clarified/explained, though: "An important principle was that any alteration to the boundaries or command arrangements in SWPA required the consent of the Australian government". Who considered this important and why?
 * Expanded on this a bit. I know somewhere I have something that says that cooperation in SWPA was more effective that in Europe, but cannot remember where it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. If you come across it again, it would be great to include something like that, but I'm happy with the level of coverage as it is for GA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Seems a balanced account, no issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues in this regard.


 * 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:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Just a couple of minor tweaks required, per above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Passing now. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)