Talk:No. 41 Squadron RAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Kges1901 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * Many references are missing and need to be added for the large number of paragraphs marked with citation needed tags.
 * For an article this long, the lead should be expanded to a full paragraph so that it summarizes the article. The lead was removed as copyvio. A lead should be written that isn't copied off the 41 Squadron brief history article.
 * Ref to Gillespie doesn't cover the statement about the Canadian aces or the service of the other aces with the squadron, please provide refs supporting their service with the squadron.
 * The notable pilots section should probably be condensed, this article doesn't need to provide biographies of men such as Collishaw who already have wikipedia articles.
 * Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the Roll of Honour section should be removed.
 * The lists of decorations awarded, POWs, escapers/evaders and Guinea Pig Club members should be removed. External links can be added to copies of the lists (if they are present in other places on the web).
 * 41 Squadron Retro external link has connection issue, should be removed if dead.
 * Notes with comments such as Refs #1, #21, #59, etc. should be formatted like those here and should be placed in a separate reflist and section.
 * There are many duplinks in this article that should be removed, see MOS:DUPLINK for more info on this.
 * "The pilots returned from the third without the Commanding Officer" - Is this CO mentioned Geoffrey Hyde?
 * Short citations to books written by Steve Brew should have the year included, as there are two books by that author in the bibliography.

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Failed, because of the issues raised above. If they are all adressed the article can be relisted. Kges1901 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Failed, because of the issues raised above. If they are all adressed the article can be relisted. Kges1901 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Failed, because of the issues raised above. If they are all adressed the article can be relisted. Kges1901 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Failed, because of the issues raised above. If they are all adressed the article can be relisted. Kges1901 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Failed, because of the issues raised above. If they are all adressed the article can be relisted. Kges1901 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)