Talk:No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 15:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images all have alt text (no action required).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Is there a word missing here: "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and Central Flying School (CFS)...", specifically should it be "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and the Central Flying School (CFS)..."?
 * I can't speak for all the armed forces, but in the RAAF they seem to avoid the definite article for units even if they're not numbered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed the Army is notorious for it!
 * "Group Captain Eaton remained in command...", should probably be "Eaton remained in command..." following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
 * Agreed, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise the prose is of high quality and is mostly MOS compliant.
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points are covered without going into undue detail.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues here.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * Images used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article is of a high standard and is very close to meeting the GA criteria, just a couple of very minor points to deal with / or disccuss. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for taking the time to review, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Too easy, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)