Talk:2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I will review this article over the next couple of days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/suggestions

good use of published works for referencing (no action required);
coverage overall seems good for an organisation that is largely secretive, without going into too much "fan" detail (e.g. the selection and training section seems sufficient to me without losing focus) - (no action required)
if possible, could the lead be expanded a little, maybe to at least two paragraphs
in the infobox, for size instead of "one regiment" which is very non-specific, could rough figures of the number of personnel be added, or the number of component sub units? i.e. "~700 personnel", or if not known "four commando companies, and three supporting companies" etc.
in the infobox, the UCG doesn't appear cited, but it appears cited in the body...if cited in the body, it probably doesn't need a citation in the infobox
the motto is cited in the body, so probably doesn't need a citation in the infobox
slightly different presentation in the references, compare: "ABC News (Australia). Australian Broadcasting Corporation" to "ABC News" (refs 47 v 48)
in the References, you sometimes use the state location, and sometimes you don't. For instance compare "Wavell Heights, Queensland" with "Crows Nest"
in the Role section, I suggest in-text attribution of the quote. For instance, "According to blah...the role of the 2nd Commando Regiment is to ...
in the Role section, maybe add a brief explanation about what TAG (E) is responsible for?
"unlinked" --> "delinked"?
"elect a posting" --> "elect to be posted"?
capitalisation: "the Battalion --> "the battalion" per WP:MILTERMS
maybe add a clause to the Formation section that the unit was formed as a "two-company" battalion initially...you don't actually say it this clearly until the East Timor section
this sentence seems a bit promotional: "The pace of battalion life during this time was hectic with capability development, equipment acquisition and training focussing every member's attention"
I suggest adding the year to this sentence: "The 2nd Commando Regiment, then known as 4 RAR (Cdo), was deployed as a part of the International Force for East Timor (INTERFET)"
"AO Matilda" (perhaps explain what AO stands for and where this was (i.e in the west of the country on the border, or whatever is relevant)
"The commandos formed the "quick reaction" element..." For lay readers, this term may be unfamiliar, is there a way this role could be explained? It probably wouldn't need more than a clause or a short sentence
"tasked with Advanced Force Operations for follow-on forces..." again, the lay reader probably won't know what AFO means...I'm not even sure I do
in the Timor Leste section, maybe clarify who Reinado was...
the prose in the Afghanistan section starts to get a little ragged. I made a quick attempt to fix the issue, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit
please confirm which citation covers trhe UCG award...I wasn't quite sure when reading the body of the article, and may have accidently moved it during my copy edit
Operation Catalyst appears to be mentioned by name in the infobox, but not in the body of the article

Gday, thanks for taking the time to read through the article (and for your improvements to the text). I think I've got most of these now other than the lead and size of the unit in the infobox. I want to have a think about these for a bit. I'm struggling to think what else to include in the lead to expand it at the moment. Re the infobox, I've always been a fan of brevity here but concede that "one regiment" is fairly generic (although seems to be used by a few of our other articles - considered for instance Special Air Service Regiment and New Zealand Special Air Service). Perhaps not unexpectedly though I haven't been able to find anything on the number of personnel in the regiment. I guess another issue is that the size of the unit has changed over its existence. I've wikilinked "regiment" for now but might have a think about this overnight and see if I come up with anything else (same for the issue with the lead). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Thanks for adding that information to the lead, I've tweaked the size in the infobox now. What do you think? Anotherclown (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, mate, your changes look good. I'm happy that the article meets the GA criteria. Thanks for your hard work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. You brought up some really good points which forced me to examine this article (and SASR) more closely than I had before. Ended up making a few improvements (hopefully) there too. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

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:

Overall:
a Pass/Fail: