Jump to content

Talk:3rd Pioneer Battalion (Australia)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 03:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Progression

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

Technical review

[edit]
  • 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: One of the images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - [5] (no action required)
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate link to be removed.

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Perhaps consider adding some third level headings to the history section to break it up? (suggestion only)
    • "Trained as infantrymen..." - perhaps link infantrymen?
    • "...from one separate state..." - perhaps instead "one particular state"
    • "... During the action for which Peeler received the award..." this seems a little long winded - perhaps just simplify as "... During the action Peeler was part of a Lewis Gun team..."?
    • Perhaps wikilink "tunneling companies"?
    • Wikilink Belle, Heilly, Ribemont, the Somme and Amiens if appropriate links exist.
    • Repetitive prose here " In the lull the followed" (used twice) - perhaps reword?
    • Is this correct presentation "102nd US Engineers" - would "US 102nd Engineers" be better?
    • I did a light copy edit so pls check you are happy with my changes here - [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 limited sources available for this unit.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • All major aspects seem to be covered.
    • 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 have the req'd documentation.
    • Captions look ok.