Talk:No. 391 Squadron RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this late tonight. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Comments and suggestions.
 * Is it well-written? Symbol support vote.svg
 * 1. Like I mentioned in the GA-review of No. 91 Wing RAAF I suggest using a paragraph or two in the lead.
 * I thought that was a good idea for 91 Wing given that article's length but this is about half the size so I felt a one-paragraph lead was okay. It's similar to many other GA-level articles I've put together, especially ones (like this) that I don't plan to take further than GAN.
 * 2. I know you just explained some things about links on Ian Fleming's talk page, but why not link Japan, South Korea and Australia?
 * Again, these are present-day countries that I don't think need linking (nor, in my experience, do reviewers at A-Class and FAC). If for instance I'd been talking about Empire of Japan, I'd certainly link it, but here we mean the modern political entity of Japan.
 * 3. "It comprised 299 officers and men, forty Mustangs, three CAC Wirraways, two Douglas C-47 Dakotas and two Austers" - WP:NUMERAL says you should not switch between writing numbers in words and numbers in the same sentence.
 * Heh, not sure most sources would do that but I don't want to go against WP MOS, so will change it.


 * Is it verifiable with no original research? Symbol support vote.svg
 * Is it broad in its coverage? Symbol support vote.svg
 * Is it neutral? Symbol support vote.svg
 * Is it stable? Symbol support vote.svg
 * Is it illustrated? Symbol support vote.svg
 * Another great article Ian. It's totally worth GA-status, but would like some comments on my three points. Good job. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very kind Jonas, and I appreciate you taking the time to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)