Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Madang/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) 09:25, 5 December 2017 (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 req'd)
  • Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: No dead links - [4] (no action req'd).
  • Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it - [5] (suggestion only, not a GA req)
  • 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

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Slight inconsistency in the infobox with flag for Japanese commander and no flag in Allied column. Perhaps don't need either?
    • I think there might be a missing word here: " the area had been placed Australian administration in 1920 and had subsequently been renamed...".
    • Use of double negative here could probably be improved: "...it was not impassable particularly on foot..."
    • Repetitive wording here: "...terrain is less rugged than the Finisterre Range to the south and there are no especially high features, although the terrain..." ("the terrain").
    • Wording is a little clunky here: "...bypass Saidor following the Landing at Saidor by US troops...", suggest something like "...bypass Saidor following the landing there by US troops..."
    • "In the early stages of the pursuit, the Australians sent long range patrols..." hyphenate "long-range" (per my Macquarie Dictionary at least).
    • "11th Division's divisional carrier company..." perhaps wikilink carrier here to Universal Carrier?
    • "...Several artillery rounds were fired..." I assume by the Japanese at the Australians? Perhaps clarify?
    • "...cracked inaccurately..." language seems a little too descriptive here for an encyclopedia entry.
    • "...since the fighting around Kokoda and Buna–Gona..." maybe add wikilinks here for the Kokoda Campaign and Battle of Buna-Gona?
    • No MOS issues that I could see.
  • 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 sources available.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major aspects of the topic seem to be covered that I could see.
    • 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 POV issues.
    • All significant views are covered.
  • 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.