Talk:Military history of Australia/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]I've skim read through this article and it looks like a possible WP:FAC. However, I will only be assessing it against WP:WIAGA. As it's a comprehensive article it could take up to a week to review, but I will try to make it shorter than that. I will be reviewing section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. I appreciate your time and look forward to your comments. Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's quite an easy article to read. I've got as far as the Second Boer War, I've not checked the citations, but no problems to report so far. Pyrotec (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A wide-ranging summary of the military histor of Australia that readable and well referenced.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article. This article appears to be a possible WP:FAC; can I suggest that it is subjected to WP:PR as a first step? Pyrotec (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your time with this and for your comments Pyrotec. I have a couple of things I want to do with the article and will then look at a PR, and possibly FAC. Cheers.Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)