Talk:Grumman S-2 Tracker in Australian service/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 08:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I will review this shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Initial review comments: G'day Nick, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * in the lead, An order for S-2E Trackers was placed in 1964 --> suggest adding the number of Trackers ordered here
 * in the lead, and S-2G Trackers were --> same as the above
 * Done both Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * suggest maybe making it clear in the lead that the aircraft were never used in combat
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * when one of Melbourne' arrester wires snapped --> "Melbourne's"
 * Fiexed
 * During an exercise conducting in this deployment --> "exercised conducted"
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the system was installed in a building: do we know at which base this was installed?
 * HMAS Albatross - added Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * HMAS Albaross --> Albatross
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 19 year old sailor --> "19-year-old"
 * Fixed Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * when the Trackers were sold in 1984, was the capability they had provided maintained with a different aircraft?
 * Yes, eventually Seahawks were purchased - added Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * in the Bibliography, the Jones source doesn't appear to be specifically cited -- is there something in this that should be added to the article? If not, I'd suggest maybe moving it to a Further reading section, or probably just removing it altogether
 * Removed Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * citation # 26 - I'm 100 per cent that this meets the RS requirements. I see it does cite its sources and I do know a couple of the contributors, and know that they are knowledgeable on the topics. Thoughts?
 * Yes, agreed. A search of Google Books shows a few cases where it's been used as a reference for professionally published works, so I think that WP:RS is met. I've always found it to be an accurate source. I've added a little bit more from this source. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy with that -- it seems authoritative for the information it is citing. By the way, that's a nifty search function. I'm not sure if I've seen that before. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * images look to be appropriately licenced (no action required)
 * Thanks a lot for this review, and all the best for the Christmas season. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for your work on the article. Interestingly, I got to climb inside a Tracker (static on display) once when I was at Nowra for parachute training many years ago. Much smaller than I would have thought. Some of our relatives are coming down from interstate, but I'm on call with work so may have to head off interstate myself at short notice. Happy to go, though, as there are many people out there who need a break. Hope you have a safe and happy Christmas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I was surprised at how small the preserved cockpit of the Tracker in the Fleet Air Arm Museum was when I saw it a few years ago. I hope that you don't end up being called on, and have a restful Christmas. Nick-D (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: ✅


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Changes above have addressed my concerns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)