Talk:No. 5 Airfield Construction Squadron RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 December 2011 (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: Image lacks alt text (suggestion only).
 * 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 missing word here: "The squadron was RAAF's only...", consider perhaps: "The squadron was the RAAF's only..."?
 * Fixed
 * This is a little clumsy: "...ship carrying from Australia it ran aground twice...", perhaps reword to something like: "...ship carrying it from Australia ran aground twice."
 * Fixed: I thought I'd fixed this sentence yesterday, but I actually made it worse!
 * "During this period No. 1 Mobile Works Squadron (Special Works Force) was redesignated No. 5 Mobile Works Squadron (5MWS) on 16 November." Perhaps more simply: "No. 1 Mobile Works Squadron (Special Works Force) was redesignated No. 5 Mobile Works Squadron (5MWS) on 16 November." (suggestion only)
 * That's simpler: done.
 * Typo here: "...were it constructed Vivigani Airfield...", consider "...where it constructed Vivigani Airfield..."
 * Fixed
 * Suspect presentation of measurements here "...1,524 metres (5,000 ft) fighter runway and 1,829 metres (6,001 ft) bomber runway...", should this be "...1,524-metre (5,000 ft) fighter runway and 1,829-metre (6,001 ft) bomber runway..." as they both appear to be adjectivies?
 * Fixed. I find Template:Convert to be painful to use.
 * "At this time the unit was under strength...", should "under strength" be hypenated?
 * I don't think so.
 * "...to both fill the RAAF's need for engineering units...", consider rewording to "...to fill both the RAAF's need for engineering units..." (suggestion only)
 * I've tweaked that to get rid of the 'both' and I think it reads a bit better.
 * "The 2,743 metres (8,999 ft) runway...", consider "The 2,743-metre (8,999 ft) runway..." (as above)
 * Fixed
 * Inconsistent presentation of Vung Tau, as in places you use diacritics and in others you do not (e.g. Vũng Tàu and Vung Tau Airport).
 * Fixed
 * "5ACS' last major project was the development of RAAF Base Learmonth...", it might pay to clarify that Learmonth is in Western Australia as its proximity to the previous paragraph might imply that it was in Vietnam to the lay reader (suggestion only).
 * Good point. Fixed. Thanks a lot for your very through review! Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 aspects appear to be covered without being too detailed.
 * Harrision is mentioned in the infobox as a notable commander, might he be mentioned in the text also? (minor point)
 * 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:
 * Image used is in the public domain and seems appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall this is a good article in my opinion, only a few minor prose and MOS issues to rectify first. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Passing now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)