Talk:2/3rd Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whilst I did some work on this article in the past I haven't touched it in nearly three years (Aug 2010) and it has been completely overhauled since then. Should get this reviewed this afternoon. Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 July 2013 (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 issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: external link check reveals one deadlink [4]:
  • Col Windon (info) [rugby.com.au]
    • Fixed. Added a better reference. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Alt text: Image lacks alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is down again, but Google searches don't reveal any issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: a few duplicate links:
  • Militia
  • Liverpool
  • 2/4th Battalion
  • battle honours
    • Removed. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • Think this could probably be worded a little better: "Upon the outbreak of the Second World War, due to the provisions of the Defence Act (1903) which restricted the deployment of the part-time Militia to only those areas considered to be Australian territory, the Australian government decided to raise an all volunteer force for service overseas. This force was known as the Second Australian Imperial Force, and the first division raised as part of it was the 6th Division." Consider instead: "Upon the outbreak of the Second World War the Australian government decided to raise an all volunteer force for service overseas, due to the provisions of the Defence Act (1903) which restricted the deployment of the part-time Militia to only those areas considered to be Australian territory. This force was known as the Second Australian Imperial Force, with the 6th Division the first to be raised." (suggestion only)
  • " Along with the 2/1st, 2/2nd and 2/4th Battalions, the 2/3rd were assigned to the 16th Brigade...", probably should be "Along with the 2/1st, 2/2nd and 2/4th Battalions, the 2/3rd was assigned to the 16th Brigade."
  • Hanging sentence here I think: "The battalion's first commanding officer was Lieutenant Colonel Vivian England—an officer who had served in the First World War and had continued to serve in the Militia, commanding the 55th Battalion." Consider: "The battalion's first commanding officer was Lieutenant Colonel Vivian England—an officer who had served in the First World War and had continued to serve in the Militia after the war, commanding the 55th Battalion."
  • "...after a 22-hour voyage in which their convoy was attacked by Axis air-raids...", attacked by "air-raids" sounds a little strange, consider substituting for "aircraft".
  • Not sure what is meant by "however, and on..." here: "The following day they occupied Veria,[4] however, and on 12 April the 6th Division was grouped together with the New Zealand 2nd Division and a lone British brigade to form an Anzac Corps." Perhaps reword slightly?
  • "On 5 April, a Japanese naval force sortied from the recently conquered Andaman Islands...", "conquered" seems a little "old world", maybe "captured"? (suggestion only)
  • Minor MOS issue here: "and on the Sanananda Track (21 November–19 December)." Should be a space b/n the dates and the endash per WP:DASH.
  • This is a bit repetitive: "Under this establishment, the size of the battalion was reduced by one officer and 106 other ranks, giving the battalion a total of 803 men of all ranks." establishment x 2, battalion x 2. Perhaps reword?
    • I think I've made all these changes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • These look fine. Anotherclown (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All major points cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • Overall level of coverage seems appropriate, just wonder if the casualties suffered by the Bn in each campaign is known? I have a copy of the Bn history and can check if you don't have it anymore.
    • G'day, good idea. I'm fairly sure I can get this information from Johnston's The Proud 6th. I don't have the book at the moment, but will order it from the library tomorrow. Will probably take a week to arrive, though, unfortunately. Same same with Clift's book, so if you could take a look, that would be great. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I've flicked through Clift and actually cannot find this info. Happy to wait if you think it will be in Johnson - otherwise we can probably move on without it. Anotherclown (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
        • No worries, I'm almost certain it's in Johnston. As above, I will order it tomorrow; I'm in no rush so if it suits, please leave the review open until the book arrives. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Too easy will do. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
            • G'day, I've add the information from Johnston now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues here.

• 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:

  • Image is PD and seems appropriate to the article (I added the date to the date field of the image).
    • Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Article is in excellent shape, like what you have managed to achieve with it. Just a couple of prose issues and the issue of casualties above to discuss / deal with. Anotherclown (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Changes look good. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)