Jump to content

Talk:Battle of North Borneo/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a look at this one. It may take me a couple of days to get to it. An odd question: As I assume that this is headed straight for at least ACR, would you like me to do a "straight" assessment against the GAN criteria? Or give it the works and check over everything as if it were at FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Gog, thanks for taking a look at this. I am not intending of taking this to ACR or FAC at this stage (I am a bit busy in real life at the moment), so probably just focus on the GAN criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

Looks good, thank you. It always pays to get another set of eyes on these things. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "another was sent to its aid to attack the Japanese force from the rear" Maybe 'another was sent to aid it by attacking the Japanese force from the rear'?
  • "the company reached their" Genuine question: Can a company reach "their" objective, or should it be its?
    • Adjusted -- I think, it depends whether one considers it a collective noun, or not (which I think some people agree with and some don't). The style guide I use at work says to use "it" rather than they, but I sometimes get a bit sloppy. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for which they were intended, arrived at Weston on 3 July, where it relieved" Should this be consistent?

I will give it another read through, but that trivia is all I can find. Well up to your standards. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that all looks good. I found the coverage of this in Japanese occupation of British Borneo interesting when I did a little work on it 18 months ago (I note that you and Zawed did a lot of tidying up after me - I am not sure if I have improved much since then) and the full, detailed treatment is even more so. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed