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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Progression

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

Technical review

• a ( Disambiguations): b ( Linkrot) c ( Alt text)

• no dabs,
• ext links work,
• alt text is present.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b ( MoS):

• I have fixed a few typos, but there are a couple of things I couldn't fix (per below)
  • Thanks, they look good. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Prelude, this seems to be missing something: "with this formation which would bear the brunt of the fighting";
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Prelude, tense issue ("would be held", and "provided") "would be held in reserve and also provided a battalion to each of the other brigades as reinforcements";
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Prelude "regiments" should be wikilinked on first mention, currently I think it is on the second;
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• "first phase by 1KOSB with the 1KSLI and 3RAR in support" (slight inconsistency in use of definate article "the");
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• "counter-attack" and "counterattack";
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• wikilink "counter-battery fire";
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• not sure about this (and other examples of similar): "C and B Company" (shouldn't it be "C and B Companies" - plural?);
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Battle section, wikilink "section" ("and a section of medium machine-guns");
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• "To be sure, the assault was being" (to be sure sounds a little informal);
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Fall of Maryang San section, this could be tighter: "were unable to be in position in time to commence the attack as planned";
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• "B Company—commanded by Captain Henry Nicholls—lead off shrouded in the heavy mist" ("led" off);
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• "while undoubtedly a large number had also been wounded" (not sure about this, perhaps it would be better to use more subtle language, e.g. "while the Australians believed that a large number of Chinese had also been wounded");
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• "northwest of the summit" (I think this should be "north-west of the summit");
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• not sure about this "and to run ammunition forward at great risk" (probably remove "at great risk");
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• not sure about the wording here: "The Australians had won an impressive victory" (perhaps just say "The Australians had been victorious...")
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Aftermath, this is confusing: "with 283 killed by body count alone and another 50 captured" (it implies that someone can be killed by body count, when what you mean is that it was a method used to determine how many were killed);
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Aftermath "Distinguished Service Order" might be overlinked (it is already linked in a previous section);
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Aftermath, "During the battle, the logistic system proved robust enough" (whose logistic system?);
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Aftermath, "Through out the operation" (I think this should be "Throughout the operation" - the Macquarie dictionary lists "throughout");
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• in the Aftermath, "during which Private Bill Speakman was awarded the Victoria Cross" (I suggest rewording this slightly. Speakman probably wasn't awarded the VC during the fighting, but for the fighting);
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• 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):

• No issues.

• 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:Korean porters Nov 1951 (AWM HOBJ2563).jpg" - is missing description information on the image description page,
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• "File:Australian casualties Operation Commando Oct 1951 (AWM HOBJ2443).jpg" - same as above (this is on Commons), so you will need to edit the Commons page, or I can do this for you (I have a Commons account), if you tell me what you want added;
  • Done. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• if you are considering taking this to FA, I would suggest replacing the non-free map if possible, although it seems okay for GA and the searches I did, didn't locate any free maps to replace it with.
  • Ack, I won't take it to FA but will look around for one. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• A couple of minor prose issues to deal with per above, but otherwise looks fine to me. Cheers, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • All done now, thanks again for reviewing. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • No worries, looks good. AustralianRupert ( talk) 03:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply