Talk:Battle of Dumpu/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Zawed in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I will take a look at this one. Zawed (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lead edit

  • Perhaps add a couple of sentences following "the 7th Division advanced from Kaiapit to Dumpu in the Ramu Valley." to describe the nature of the advance and opposition.
     Y Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Background edit

  • The link on Lae isn't on its first usage.
     Y Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Between the Ramu Valley...: the link on Ramu Valley is actually to the river, which is mentioned earlier.
     Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Some of the dates in the Military Situation section recite the year (1943) when that has already been established and it is clear from the context that it hasn't progressed to 1944.
     Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • ...belonging to 78th Infantry Regiment, along with one company of the 80th Infantry Regiment.: perhaps clarify that these regiments are part of the 20th Division. That introduces the division and places it in better context when it is mentioned in the next paragraph.
     Y Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Battle edit

  • the heavily equipped diggers: just wondering whether diggers is a little colloquial here?
     Y I don't think so. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • and ANGAU hired local labour: maybe provide a little context for what ANGAU is here?
     Y Added a footnote about ANGAU. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • moved to Kaigulan II: what is moved to Kaigulan II? Sounds like a military base?
     Y Not really. Changed "II" to "2" and added an explanatory footnote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Private W. H. G. remained to protect Honner: missing a surname for the private? It may not be important but the private isn't mentioned again and the reader gets the impression later that Honner had been abandoned.
     Y Private W. H. G. Bennett QX27023. Not sure how his name got deleted. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Other stuff edit

  • Dupe links: Lae, Papuan Infantry Battalion
     Y Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Image tags OK.

This looks to be in good order with only minor issues. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hawkeye, this looks all good. I believe that the article meets the necessary criteria so am passing as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply