Talk:Tanks in the Australian Army/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll pick this GAR shortly. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Checklinks reports no problems with the article (no action required)
 * Dablinks reports no problems with the article (no action required)
 * No duplicate links found (no action required)
 * Images are appropriately licensed and sourced, and have suitable captions (no action required)
 * Image gallery conforms to WP:IG (no action required)
 * Prose referencig appears to be in order (no action required)
 * As far as I can tell, the Footnotes employ some sort of parenthetical referencing, embedding the reference in the text itself. Granted it is not a part of the prose, which would be disallowed per WP:WIAGA note 5, and I'm not sure if this qualifies for coverage of the "rule". Just to be on the safe side would you mind if I tried to reformat refs in a footnote to see if it is feasible to apply a uniform referencing style there as well?
 * In "One Australian was killed and 10 wounded, while communist losses included at least 107 killed, six wounded and eight captured." I assume the "communists" were Viet Cong, but it is possible that a casual reader might miss the link. I would suggest adding some sort of clarification of the link or some other sort of revising here.

Actually, this is all I've got - nice work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to read through this, I appreciate it. I've made a few changes - so pls let me know if there is anything else. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All good to go. Passing GA.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)