Talk:No. 285 Squadron RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I believe this article meets GA standards. (First time I have heard of a RAAF squadron with a number in the 200 range.)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * USAF images, appropriately licensed
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Tks Hawkeye -- yeah, the 200 series is for training units, 300 for 'base' sqns, and 400 for maintenance, but the 200s have been the least common over the years (92 Wing's 292 Sqn might be the only other around now). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * USAF images, appropriately licensed
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Tks Hawkeye -- yeah, the 200 series is for training units, 300 for 'base' sqns, and 400 for maintenance, but the 200s have been the least common over the years (92 Wing's 292 Sqn might be the only other around now). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Tks Hawkeye -- yeah, the 200 series is for training units, 300 for 'base' sqns, and 400 for maintenance, but the 200s have been the least common over the years (92 Wing's 292 Sqn might be the only other around now). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Tks Hawkeye -- yeah, the 200 series is for training units, 300 for 'base' sqns, and 400 for maintenance, but the 200s have been the least common over the years (92 Wing's 292 Sqn might be the only other around now). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)