Talk:2/48th Battalion (Australia)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Progression[edit]
- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [[1]]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [[2]]
Technical review[edit]
- Disambiguations: None found - [3]
- Linkrot: None found - [4]
- Alt text: All images have alt text.
Criteria[edit]
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- IMO it is well written and MOS compliant.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- All information is cited to reliable sources and there is no original research that I can find.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- Major aspects are covered.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is written from a neutral POV, is a fair representation of events and uses all major works available.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- Although there has been considerable recent work, the article is not subject to an edit war.
- 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':
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Images are appropriate for the article, and are tagged and captioned;
- Images is a non-free image, but has an appropriate free-use rationale.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
- Overall this is a another good battlion history. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)