Talk:Handley Page Victor/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to this later today. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * The home page of the source for #65 features an image of XM715 with the caption "XM715 powering up for a fast taxi run at Bruntingthorpe", and the linked page to XL231 states that "XL231 carries out occasional taxi runs at special events when they have enough money for fuel." --TransientVoyager (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A. References to sources:
 * The home page of the source for #65 features an image of XM715 with the caption "XM715 powering up for a fast taxi run at Bruntingthorpe", and the linked page to XL231 states that "XL231 carries out occasional taxi runs at special events when they have enough money for fuel." --TransientVoyager (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The home page of the source for #65 features an image of XM715 with the caption "XM715 powering up for a fast taxi run at Bruntingthorpe", and the linked page to XL231 states that "XL231 carries out occasional taxi runs at special events when they have enough money for fuel." --TransientVoyager (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite right, I missed the caption. My apologies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If http://www.214squadron.org.uk/ isn't sound, would any of the following sources be more suitable/acceptable as a replacement :
 * The Eastern Daily Press, UK Serials or Flickr? --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Barnes (p. 525) mentions the collision, giving the date, the Victor serial number and the location, but not the casualties or the serial number of the Canberra.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources must meet WP:RS and WP:V. The three alternatives would suffice, although they're best from left to right in order. Perhaps a double cite with Barnes and whichever one provides the info that Barnes lacks.
 * OK, what about the britains-smallwars.com cite? Can we find a better source?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Barnes mentions several detachments of Victor B1As to Singapore (from 10, 15, 55 and 57 Sqds) in 64–65 to deter Communist guerillas, but not being bombed up ready for operational missions. Fraser-Mitchell has a photo caption referring to 57 Sqn Victors being sent to Singapore in 64 to support operations against the Indonesians. Perhaps one of the more modern book sources has more details (particularly the bits of the Osprey book which cannot be seen from Google books).Nigel Ish (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to replace the current article entry with the information given by Barnes, and re-add the stuff from britains-smallwars.com when a better source comes to light. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Do it and we're done here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Borneo stuff now trimmed back to what can be verified.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Dates added for B1A, B2 and SR.2.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 55 Squadron linked --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dates added for B1A, B2 and SR.2.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 55 Squadron linked --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 55 Squadron linked --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Yes, they do seem a bit iffy (the uploader was possibly 10 years out in his reckoning, and for one of them gave the wrong year in which the photo was taken); both commented out in case they can be rescued at some time. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Yes, they do seem a bit iffy (the uploader was possibly 10 years out in his reckoning, and for one of them gave the wrong year in which the photo was taken); both commented out in case they can be rescued at some time. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do seem a bit iffy (the uploader was possibly 10 years out in his reckoning, and for one of them gave the wrong year in which the photo was taken); both commented out in case they can be rescued at some time. --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: