Talk:No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, my only quibble is that you should probably specify that it was the oldest RAAF air depot in continuous existence. My first thought on reading that was "in the whole world?" because you specified RAAF for the first superlative.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Storm. Sorry, I'm sure it's me and not you, but re-reading the relevant bits of the article I don't think I follow what you mean or how you suggest it be changed... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * the oldest air force maintenance depot in continuous operation Using air force here when you'd used RAAF earlier implied, to my mind, that this didn't apply just to the RAAF, but to all air forces. I suspect that you didn't want to repeat RAAF twice in close proximity, but I think that you'll probably have to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, it actually means "in the world" but I dropped that when I was rephrasing the source. If I'm using "air force" as another way of saying "RAAF" then I use title case ("Air Force"), if I mean "any air force" then I use lower case. I understand it may not be clear though -- I'll see about re-rephrasing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
 * Had a go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, you clarified that in the direction that I didn't suspect you meant, but ya gotta go where the sources lead you. Move the cite into the lede as that's a much bigger claim that I would have expected (I wonder what the Finns think of it?) and we'll be done.
 * If you think the claim's questionable, I'd tend to prefer splitting things and just keeping the RAAF-related bit in the lead, uncited, and then cite both as they are now in the main body. I might even tweak the latter to "according to the RAAF Historical Section" as I agree it's a significant claim and not one I could verify myself (I know from my own research that the claim re. RAAF units is spot-on, as the only comparable RAAF unit is No. FTS, which was established at the same time but disbanded and reformed/renamed multiple times). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think splitting things as you suggested above is a good idea. And adding "according to the RAAF Historical Section" is also a good idea as they may not have queried non-Anglophone air forces before making that statement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No DABs, external links are good, and pictures appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)