Talk:2/15th Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:55, 12 June 2016 (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 (no action required)
• Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: No dead links - [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: The bulk of the images have alt text - [5] (no action req'd)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Some inconsistency in style with "First World War" vs "World War I"
  • "...before being raised as a Militia formation in 1921...", wikilink Militia here
  • Is there a missing word here: "... being from camps in North Africa to Italy and then later Germany..."?
  • Repetitive wording: "several managed to escape either in North Africa, or from Italy, with several..." ("several" x 2 in same sentence)
  • Repetitive wording: "... advance on Finschhafen, during which the 2/15th advanced..." ("advanced" x 2)
  • Is there a missing word here: "... up to brigade level exercises was re-constituted for its next campaign..." ("was re-constituted"?)
  • Missing word here too I think: "... the 2/15th subsequently moved inland and patrolling operations..."
  • "During these patrols there were numerous contacts..." - I wonder if some readers won't know what "contacts" means in this instance? Perhaps clarify?
  • I made a few minor edits / fixed some typos - these are my edits [7].

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • No issues. Article is well referenced and looks to reflect the bulk of the sources available for this unit.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major aspects seem to be covered.
  • Casualties by campaign could be included from Johnston That Magnificent 9th:
    • Tobruk including Benghazi Handicap - 45 KIA and DOW, 1 DOAS, 103 WIA and 205 POW (p. 248)
    • Alamein 7 July to 22 October 1942 - 62 KIA, 10 DOW, 180 WIA, 5 POW (p. 248)
    • Alamein 23 October to 5 November - 19 KIA, 13 DOW, 96 WIA, 2 POW (p. 249)
    • New Guinea - 30 KIA, 6 DOW, 4 DOAS, 119 WIA (p. 249)
    • Borneo - 2 KIA, 3 WIA (p. 250)
  • Article is focused and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.

• 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 are appropriate for article and are PD and most seem to have the req'd documentation.
  • Captions look ok.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • No major issues I could see. Probably just needs a minor copy edit and adding of casualties by campaign, otherwise fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for these points, I think I've got them all now. These are my changes: [8] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes they look fine, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)