Talk:Roy Inwood/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 04:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I will review this one over the next few days. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • I made a couple of minor tweaks to text in places, check you are OK with these.
   • "On the 25th of the month, the battalion...": suggest rephrasing to be more explicit about which month.
   • "...incurring about 20 per cent casualties.": not knowing the strength of the battalion or how many troops were left OOB, it may be better to express this as absolute/approximate values (as you have done elsewhere).
   • The paragraph beginning "The 10th Battalion suffered 207 casualties..." repeats his name quite a bit where "he" would suffice.
   • The wikt for mongrel should be moved to first mention.
   • "he was employed by the City of Adelaide": should be made clear that it was the Adelaide City Council as mentioned later
   • "In June 1943, Inwood was transferred...": this sentence uses transferred twice, suggest replacing the second occurrence with "posted"?
   • "the 10th Battalion Club decided to present the VC to the City of Adelaide" I think we could just say city here.
   • No dablinks

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   • The lead says the VC is the "highest award for gallantry in the face of the enemy" but this isn't actually mentioned in the article body. I imagine "They Dared Mightily" will be able to support this.
   • Not necessary to use the "a" in Bean 1937a and 1942a
   • Retrieval date for Faulkner and Morgan refs? There looks to be a formatting issue with Faulkner as well, a square bracket is present.
   • External links check out OK

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • "No longer welcome in Broken Hill...": was Broken Hill quite a unionist/leftist town? If so, it might be worth mentioning. It seems odd to me that a VC winner would not be welcome given the status he would have had.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Image tags checked and appear OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Looks in good shape, minimal work required for GA status. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Zawed! All done except the "20 per cent" one; Lock doesn't give figures, and neither does Bean. I could go to the war diary if you think that's appropriate? As far as Broken Hill is concerned, it is a mining town, and in those days highly unionised. The fact that their federal member was a far-left ALP politician speaks volumes, and Inwood's comments at his welcome home wouldn't have gone down well at all. But I don't have a source for that, I'm leaving it for the reader to make the links. Do you think it needs more context? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Scratch that, even the war diary says 20 per cent rather than a figure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the changes/responses, have updated checklist and am passing as GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)