Talk:No. 457 Squadron RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * external links work;
 * some images have alt text, but others do not. You might consider adding it in for the others, but it is not a GA requirement: ;
 * I've added alt text for all the images Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * no copyright issues according to CorenSearchBot:

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in the lead, I wonder if it could be re-ordered slightly to appear chronologically. For instance the transfer to Australia and disbandment is mentioned in paragraph one, but then in paragraph two it goes back to the service in England;
 * I've tried to write the introduction per WP:MOSBEGIN, which calls for the initial para to briefly define the topic (in this case the squadron and its key dates). The second para then provides greater detail on its role in the war. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know about that guideline. No dramas, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * minor punctuation inconsistency: "probable" and 'probable' are both used, but for consistency one style should be used (you also have 'kill', but also "Betty" and "Dinah");
 * All replaced with "s
 * minor grammar inconsistency: "the squadron" and "the Squadron" (in the infobox photo caption) - I think as it would be an improper noun it should just be "the squadron";
 * Fixed
 * in the Darwin section: "No. 54 and No. 452 squadrons" - should this be "No. 54 and No. 452 Squadrons"?
 * Yes, fixed
 * "Daily flying was normally limited to just one hour a day, however" - "a day" possibly redundant, given that it is daily flying;
 * Fixed
 * in the Morotai and Labuan section, "On 1 July 1944 No. 452 and 457 squadrons" - should it be "On 1 July 1944 No. 452 and 457 Squadrons"?
 * Fixed


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Boyer and Rawlings is in the Notes, but not in the References - can full bibliographic details be added?;
 * Done
 * same as above for Flintham and Thomas;
 * Done
 * Grant and Listemann in References, but not cited - suggest adding a citation to it, or moving to a Further reading section;
 * same as above for Smith and Pentland;
 * same as above for Smith and Malone;
 * All three done
 * is there a citation that could be added for the battle honours?
 * Yes, I've added a link to the AWM for this Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * the battle honours are mentioned in the infobox, but not in the prose. I wonder if it would be possible to add a quick sentence to the prose (probably just after the disbandment), mentioning the battle honours;
 * Done
 * in the infobox there are two aircraft that don't appear in the table in the Aircraft operated section - should the table be amended? (not sure what the norm is for aircraft articles, sorry, so just clarifying the intention here);
 * Fixed


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


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues.


 * 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:
 * No war stoppers, but a couple of suggestions:
 * I suggest tweaking the licence information on File:457 Sqn (AWM 066322).jpg. It should probably just use tag;
 * Same as above for File:RAAF Spitfires awaiting disposal 1946.jpg.
 * Both now fixed. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a good article. Just a few minor points that I think should be addressed/commented on before promoting. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review. I'm going to be on holiday until Monday, and will address the points you've raised when I return. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, have fun. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your very detailed review - I think that I've addressed all the comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, Nick, this is a very good article. Easily meets the GA criteria in my opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)