Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Australian Corps of Transport/archive1

Royal Australian Corps of Transport edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have only just recently returned to editing Wikipedia. I would like to try to get this to GA status.

Thanks, Aeonx (talk) 10:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert's comments edit

G'day, good work with this so far. It's great to see someone working on this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for GA, I would like to see all paragraphs referenced, so I think refs should be placed in the following places:
- ~~at the end of the paragraph about the corps' role~~ ✔;
- ~~after the sentence: "The RACT Banner is currently housed in the Tobruk Barracks Officers' Mess at Puckapunyal."~~ ✔
- all of the equipment items
~~the RACT abbrev should be introduced formally. I'd suggest just putting it in the lead as follows: "The Royal Australian Corps of Transport (RACT) is a corps within the Australian Army."~~ ✔
~~link "corps" in the lead~~ ✔;
I would like to see a broader discussion of where RACT soldiers are employed. For instance, mentioning some of the major transport units (e.g. the FSBs, CSSBs, etc.), but also making it clear that RACT pers are employed broadly in other units, e.g. infantry battalions, engineer units, artillery units, other log (e.g. medical) units, etc.
Is it possible to mention deployments...one imagines that RACT pers have been deployed on pretty much every major Australian deployment since the corps formed. Is this covered anywhere?
Good luck with taking this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

I did a little copyediting in the first part and skimmed the rest. I don't think you'll have a problem with prose at GAN. Good luck. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Suggest expanding the lead considerably - it should summarize the entire article
File:Wait_for_the_Wagon_March_tune.ogg: what is the licensing status of the performance? The copyright of the original music should also be reflected in the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]