Talk:Battle of Bita Paka/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2011 (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;
- ext links all work;
- alt text is present.
Comments
[edit]These are my suggestions for possible improvement:
- in the lead "believed to be located in the area" - is this necessary? Was the wireless station located there or not? Perhaps say "which the Australians believed was in the area", or even remove it completely;
- Changed to "which the Australians believed was in the area". Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- "his staff officer, Major Cyril Brudenell White completed plans for the Australian Imperial Force". Perhaps add: "his staff officer, Major Cyril Brudenell White completed plans for the creation of the Australian Imperial Force";
- "Prime Minister Cook subsequently". Is there a need to say "Prime Minister" here? Maybe just "Cook" as he has already been introduced;
- "by the Home Government" - perhaps just "Britain" or "the British government" (Home Government seems a bit of an ecsoteric term);
- this might be tweaked: "The Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) was still being raised for this task, and as a prelude to an amphibious landing on the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain, ships of the Australian Squadron conducted a reconnaissance of the area, subsequently entering Blanche Bay on 12 August, whilst several destroyers also entered Simpson Harbour." Perhaps change to: "While the Australian Naval and Military Expeditionary Force (AN&MEF) was still being raised for this task, as a prelude to an amphibious landing on the Gazelle Peninsula in New Britain, ships of the Australian Squadron conducted a reconnaissance of the area. They subsequently entered Blanche Bay on 12 August, while several destroyers also entered Simpson Harbour";
- "Leutnant (Lieutenant) Mayer" and then "Leutnant Meyer" - inconsistent spelling;
- sometimes you say "the (Ship name)" and then sometimes just "(Ship name)";
- there is a run on sentence here: "The Australians surrounded the town and proceeded to bombard it, meanwhile HMAS Encounter arrived on station and fired several shells at a ridge nearby". Perhaps replace the comma after "bombard it" with a semi colon?
- "Lieutenant-Commander" and "Lieutenant Commander" - inconsistent hyphenation;
- slightly confused by this: "overall command of Lieutenant Commander Charles Elwell" and "the battalion commander, Commander J.A.H. Beresford" (who is in command of who? Isn't a lieutenant commander junior to a commander?);
- Reworded, hopefully this makes sense now. Elwell commanded the half battalion (like a Coy OC), Beresford was the Bn comd (CO). Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- "and accompanied by two German prisoners as interpreters" (perhaps add "acting as interpreters");
- "bayoneting all those they had captured" (all those doesn't make sense, if it had been all, then surely it would have been more than 30 Melanesians killed. Perhaps it should be "bayoneting some of those they had captured"?);
- "the modest territorial and strategic gain" (perhaps "the modest territorial and strategic gains");
- "consisting of half a battalion of 200 men" (perhaps just "consisting of 200 men" - half of a battalion seems to be a bit indistinct given the varying sizes of battalions);
- reworded a little. "half of the battalion" is used by the sources, and appears to be a sub-unit (like a Coy I think). Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- in the same sentence as the above comment, repetition: "advanced party" and "advancing";
- "40 German soldiers and 110 natives" (perhaps replace "natives" with a more descriptive word?)
- in the Occupation section, repetition of the word "widespread";
- "re-enlisted in the AIF" (this abbreviation has not been formally introduced - perhaps add it next to the first mention of the Australian Imperial Force);
- "newly-founded" (don't use hyphens after "-ly" adverbs);
- I'm not sure about the capitalisation here: "Although required by International law" (perhaps just "international law");
- should "AE1" be in italics as it is a ship's name?
- Yes it should. Done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- this seems a little awkward to me: "unexpected ability to fight in close terrain, while their outflanking of the German positions had unnerved their opponents" (unexpected - by whom?, also subject switch). Perhaps reword to: "Regardless, the Australian expeditionary force prevailed largely because they were able to fight in close terrain, and their use of outflanking manoeuvres had surprised and unnerved the German defenders";
- Reworded now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- further to the above, I suggest slightly reorganising that paragraph. Maybe list the reason for the Australian success, then follow it by the not well managed part and then the bit about the battle becoming a side show in a wider war;
- not sure about this: "the battle may have ultimately held little significance to the Germans as well" - is this speculation on the part of a source? If so, maybe it should be attributed, for instance: "Historian Joe Bloggs asserts that..." or "according to historian John Kafoops...";
- Reworded. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- "To be sure it yielded few tactical" ("To be sure" sounds a little informal and probably doesn't add much to the sentence);
- "As many as 100,000 birds were subsequently slaughtered" (perhaps change "slaughtered" to "killed" - more neutral language?)
- "Perhaps controversially" - suggest removing this as commentary?
- in the Footnotes, perhaps instead of "See blah blah" it might be better to include an inline citation in the footnote. For example, see the way it is done in the 3rd Division (Australia) article;
- A note in a footnote seems less accessible to me somehow. I have used this structure in a lot of articles but am unsure about the MoS, do you know if this is a requirement? Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a MOS requirement, just a matter of personal style. If you're happy with the way it is, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- A note in a footnote seems less accessible to me somehow. I have used this structure in a lot of articles but am unsure about the MoS, do you know if this is a requirement? Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- compare Citation # 2 "Retrieved 2009-11-04" to Citation # 41 "Retrieved 23 December 2009." Slightly inconsistent;
- is there an ISSN for the Marre source? Worldcat.org might have it;
- Added. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- in the References, maybe include all the coauthors for the Dennis ref (although et al would be fine in short citations);
- in the References, compare "(First ed.)" and "(Second ed.)" to "(2nd ed.)" - should this be consistent? AustralianRupert (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- in the lead "believed to be located in the area" - is this necessary? Was the wireless station located there or not? Perhaps say "which the Australians believed was in the area", or even remove it completely;
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.y
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- Looks good, all issues above addressed.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- No issues.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- No issues.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- No issues.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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:
- a (tagged and captioned):
- No real issues, but I think the licencing on "File:Colonel Holmes at Bitapaka (AWM A03147).jpg" could be tweaked. As it is published before 1923, the warning is not required. Probably just replace with "{{PD-US-1923}}". Also, it should probably eventually be moved to Commons, so if you add "|commons" to the PD-Australia tag it will eventually be moved.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
- looks pretty good, IMO, although there a few issues to be addressed before it can be listed. Sorry for the long list (its mainly just tweaking). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the extensive review. I'm left wondering how it passed ACR (due to so many of my errors) but I think I have delt with most of the points now other than the footnotes! Please let me know if it needs anything else. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good, mate, I've passed it for GA now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the extensive review. I'm left wondering how it passed ACR (due to so many of my errors) but I think I have delt with most of the points now other than the footnotes! Please let me know if it needs anything else. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- looks pretty good, IMO, although there a few issues to be addressed before it can be listed. Sorry for the long list (its mainly just tweaking). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)