Talk:49th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 22:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: none detected (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • This is a little repetitive (in the lead): "49th took part in the early stages of the New Guinea campaign in 1942, taking part in heavy fighting around Sanananda in December 1942..." ("took part" and "taking part" in the same sentence).
  • "...the 49th Battalion landed in Marseilles, in France"... might work better more simply just as "..in Marseilles, France..."
  • "...On 7 June the 49th joined the Battle of Messines where the 49th advanced on the 13th Brigade's right...", consider more simply: "...On 7 June the 49th joined the Battle of Messines where it advanced on the 13th Brigade's right..."
  • "...operations were carried out as the Allies sought to regain initiative...", should this be "regain the initiative..."?
  • Is there a typo here: "...Where possible, this units were..." (should it be these units?)
  • Think this may be a typo too: "...The economic hardships of the period resulted in a few volunteers...", should it be "...few volunteers..."?
  • "...before returning it back to New Guinea...", would this work better as: "...before sending it back to New Guinea..."
  • "...Casualties amongst the 49th Battalion are listed on the Australian War Memorial as 97 killed and 111 killed...", should this be "...97 killed and 111 wounded..."?
  • A little repetitive: "...with its personnel dropping from around 1,000 to around 200..." (around twice, perhaps change one to "approximately" or something similar?)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • Article is well referenced with all major points cited to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • No issues I could see.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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 all seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions seem ok - perhaps indicate which of the men in the photo is the 49 Bn CO (e.g. second from right or something like that).

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article looks to be of a high standard. Only a few minor prose issues to deal with / discuss and the suggestion re the caption above. Anotherclown (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking at this. I think I've got them all now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)