Talk:McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service/GA1

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

Reviewer: Petebutt (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, 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.
 * Well-written:
 * Pass

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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; and (c) it contains no original research.
 * Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass

(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).
 * Broad in its coverage:
 * Pass


 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
 * Pass


 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]
 * Pass ish (not been in main-space long enough to tell, but it seems likely that it will pass. I suggest re-assess this criteria in one month.)

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * Pass

Petebutt (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)