Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of Ratsua/GA1

< Talk:Battle of Ratsua
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Anotherclown in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply


Progression

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

Initial comments

edit
  • I wonder if the identity of forces (i.e. units) should be included in the lead?
  • Wikilink 4th Field Regiment
  • “Under pressure to keep casualties to a minimum following criticism in the Australian media…” – this sentence is a little ambiguous for me. What was being criticised? Was it the operations around Ratsua specifically or the wider campaign in general? And was this criticism just in the press or was it also political? As Long makes clear (and Charlton amplifies) the criticism was directed at operations in Bougainville and the 6th Div AO in general, and it wasn’t just press criticism but also from the opposition in the parliament. Also what about the campaign was considered contentious?
  • “As the attack began to falter, one of the wounded, a 20-year-old private, Frank Partridge, who had been injured in the arm and thigh…” I wonder if this might be worded more simply as “As the attack began to falter, one of the wounded, 20-year-old Private Frank Partridge, who had been injured in the arm and thigh…”
  • “After exploiting the position, it was discovered that the Japanese had built over 60 bunkers in the area, and the Australian patrol was withdrawn from the ridge again.” Was the withdrawal linked to them finding a large number of bunkers? I’m just finding this sentence a little unclear (the “and” seems to imply causality but I’m trying to understand why). Was it taken as a sign of the possible presence of a large force nearby etc? Or did one event just happen after the other? In which case perhaps reword slightly?
  • “The Australians, under pressure to limit casualties to their largely inexperienced troops…” Per my cmts elsewhere the issue of inexperienced AS troops perhaps warrants some *brief* explanation (esp given this battle occurred in the last year of the war). i.e. the use of relatively inexperienced Militia formations as opposed to the 2nd AIF forces used elsewhere (i.e. Aitape-Wewak and Borneo etc).
  • Should the Bn CO’s be named? Anotherclown (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Technical review

edit
  • Citations: the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
  • Disambiguations: no dabs - [4] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: Ext links all work - [5] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: Images lack alt text, so you might consider adding it (although its not a GA requirement) - [6] (no action required)
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [7] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed.

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • "The first actions were fought around seizure of Pearl Ridge..." - wording here seems slightly awkward. Is there a missing word?
    • "Following the failed landing by the Australians at Porton Plantation, the commander of the Australian II Corps, Lieutenant General Stanley Savige..." As Savige has already been introduced above now you should probably just use "Savige" on its own per WP:SURNAME.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • No issues.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    • All major points seem to be covered.
      • I checked through Charlton The Unnecessary War and Bradley Hell's Battlefield just to be sure and couldn't find anything on Ratsua. The main works appear to be those that you have used here (i.e. Long, James etc). James The Hard Slog does have a few pages on this action but you seem to cover the main points as far as I could see.
      • Long mentions an action on 29 July involving the PIB (see page 235), and the PIB's subsequent role protecting the eastern flank (see p. 236). Are these relevant and should they be covered?
    • Article is focused and uses an effective summary style.
  • 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':  
    • File:AWM P02729.002 Australian troops Soraken Peninsula August 1945.jpeg - should probably have a PD US tag.
    • Caption here uses a different date format so probably needs to be tweaked: "Masatane Kanda (left seated) surrenders Japanese forces on Bougainville to Allied commanders on September 8, 1945."
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ratsua/GA1&oldid=716114042"