Talk:Gambia Regiment/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Some issues; see below
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Issues
- Duplicate links: African Distinguished Conduct Medal, Mentioned in Dispatches
- The abbreviation RWAFF appears without being defined (although we can guess it). It begs a question though: when did the WAFF become Royal?
- "the Gambia Regiment were put in brigade reserve" -> "the Gambia Regiment was put in brigade reserve"
- "Pi Chaun" -> " Pi Chaung"
- "12 miles" Use the {{convert}} template to convert to km
- Link Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
- Commanding officers and Battle Honours sections are unreferenced. (This is what is really holding up promotion.)
- @Hawkeye7: Thank you for promptly taking a look at the article! I've made all the adjustments you have suggested. I have removed duplicate links, explained (in the interwar section) when the RWAFF gained royal patronage, changed the grammatical errors, put in the convert template (which I didn't even know existed, I'll use this more regularly now), linked Prince Philip, and most importantly, cited the COs and battle honours sections. I have also placed an 'incomplete list' template on the COs section, owing to the fact that it *is* incomplete. If there's anything else, let me know. Jeffrolland (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)