Talk:No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Review
 * According to the toolbox, it's possible there's a better link for "Canopy believed cause of Sabre pilot deaths (info) [nla.gov.au]".
 * Interesting, the automated dab checker didn't send me a reminder this time... ;-)
 * "{"The Young Shall Have Wings")": ("The Young Shall Have Wings")
 * Tks -- surprised it didn't draw attention to itself by clobbering the infobox, temperamental things they are...!
 * "During the war it had graduated 1,247 pilots, losing 45 students in fatal accidents.": This question is actually about a current FAC and not this article ... have you heard anyone claim before that "losing" is in the wrong tense in BritEng?
 * Don't know about BritEng per se but it's common wordage when discussing casualties, certainly in the Commonwealth-focussed sources I use.
 * Two images are missing.
 * Missing... what...? :-)
 * The links to the images were broken ... they're fine now. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "Sabre Trials Flight. The flight was responsible": I'd prefer the reader get some kind of clue here that this is not the usual meaning of "flight"
 * Link "flight" to flight (military unit)?
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "in the shape of": I'd prefer "in the form of"
 * Well I'd hope to avoid the "formation ... form" repetition...
 * "frontline", "front-line" (as an adjective): consistency. FWIW, AmEng is "frontline".
 * Tks, thought I had 'em all -- I think we generally say "front line" for the compound noun, in which case "front-line" would be the expected adjectival usage. Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Otherwise:
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick service! Many tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)