Talk:Battle of Suoi Chau Pha/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- a (Disambiguations):
b Linkrot
c Alt text
- no dabs found by the tools;
- no external links broken;
- images lack alt text - you might consider adding it in, although it is not a GA requirement.
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
some of the unit names are presented in italics and others are not. I think that they should all be consistent and as such would probably recommend removing the italics;- be careful with presenting abbreviations for units, for instance "2RAR" and "6RAR" are mentioned without being formally introduced in full;
- "with total Australian troop strength in Vietnam now reaching 6,300 men..." (I think "now" creates a tense issue - I think it should be "at the time" or "then" or something similar);
- sometimes you have "search and destroy" and then later "search-and-destroy" (these should be consistent);
- "had been destroyed by recent operations..." (I think "recent" creates a tense issue - I think it should be "previous");
- suggestion wikilinking "section", "company" and "battalion" etc. on first mention - so that readers know what sized units these are;
- you abbreviate "CMF", but you need to formally introduce it;
- you abbreviate "RAAF", but you need to formally introduce it first;
- in the Battle section, I think that this sentence should be split in to two: "A Company, 7RAR had already been patrolling in the Hat Dich since 3 August when the orders for the operation were issued, and they were subsequently re-supplied by helicopter early on the evening of 5 August with the supplies successfully unloaded and the helicopters departing within three minutes utilising an insertion technique perfected by the Special Air Service Regiment";
in the References section, is there an ISBN or similar for the Penniman source?
- Cheers, made all these changes now. No ISBN for Penniman AFAIK (been looking ever since I added it to the article). Anotherclown (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- Well referenced, IMO, and I think all or most major works have been consulted and discrepancies discussed.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
"The results were disappointing nonetheless..." (Only minor, but I suggest re-wording as this could be taken as a POV statement - it probably wouldn't need too much tweaking to rectify the issue);
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- Some recent work, but nothing constituting an edit war, IMO.
- 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 seem appropriately licenced to me.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
Overall, I think this is a good article, although I have listed a couple of issues that I think need to be addressed before it can be passed for GA.AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)