Talk:2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
• Disambiguations: no dabs - [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: One dead link - [4]:
  • The Lost Battalion: 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion (info) [vicnet.net.au]  Done
• Alt text: 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

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • In the lead: "The 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion was formed on June 1940..." → "in June 1940"?
  • "Raised in 1940 under the command...." seems a little redundant as you already mentioned its formation in June 1940 in the previous sentence.
  • Repetitive language here: "A small number of the battalion's personnel returned to Australia and the battalion..." → "A small number of the battalion's personnel returned to Australia and it..."
  • Some inconsistency in usage of both "World War II" and "Second World War" (you also use "World War I").
  • Wikilink SS Île de France
  • Repetitive phrasing here: "...at the time and as a result of heavy censorship not widely reported in Australia at the time..." ("at the time" x 2)
  • "...Singapore had fallen..." perhaps wikilink for context?
  • "...with a squadron of British Hussars..." perhaps find a relevant wikilink for this to explain to readers that don't know what such a unit would be?
  • Wikilink carriers, Bren guns, Thompson sub-machine guns etc., fifth columnists, anti-tank rifles, Cowra, Deception Bay
  • "The battalion lost 202 men killed or died on active service...." This sentence starts a bit abruptly and lacks some context. Perhaps instead: "During the war the battalion lost 202 men killed or died on active service..."
    • Done all of the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I did a minor c/e and fixed some typos, my edits are here [7].
    • Thanks for those, there were a few, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• 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 bulk of the sources available for this unit.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major aspects seem to be covered. A couple of minor points / suggestions:
    • Are casualties available in any source by campaign? From my own research I know that unfortunately there is nothing available in the divisional histories of the 6th and 7th Divisions (i.e. Johnston's The Proud 6th and The Silent 7th) but thought I'd ask.
      • Added Syria cas from Wigmore now. Nothing solid on Java. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Johnston The Proud 6th p. 219 actually describes the 2/3rd MG Bn as "a corps unit attached to the division in this campaign" (Aitape-Wewak), which explains the lack of coverage. Throughout the articles you've written on the 2nd AIF MG Bns I don't recall if you specifically spell out the command relationship they had to the divisions to which they were attached in explicit terms so I wonder if this description by Johnston might need to be considered for incorporation?
      • Added, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • 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 most seem to have the req'd documentation.
  • Captions look ok, except for one minor issue:
    • "A Vickers machine-gun team from the 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion in Syria, October 1941" (inconsistent hyphenation of "machine-gun")
      • It's a compound adjective, but for consistency I've removed it. I'm not sure about fixing these all one day... AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

This article looks in fine shape to me, just a few points regarding prose and C2 listed above to consider / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for your review. I think I've gotten all of these now. These are my edits: [8]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)