Talk:No. 71 Wing RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2010 (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
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * ext links all work;
 * images lack alt text (it is not a GA requirement, but you might consider adding it in).
 * Agreed and done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments/suggestions
There is little that I can find to fault this article on. It is well written, referenced, illustrated, etc. although I have the following initial comments/suggestions:
 * currently the article is in only one category, maybe it could be added to a few more. For instance "Military units and formations established in 1943" and "Military units and formations disestablished in 1945"?
 * Happy to add the first; the second is a bit problematic as there's no specific disbandment date in the sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No dramas. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * in the infobox box "four–five flying squadrons" - I think this should be "4–5 flying squadrons". Not sure where I read it, but somewhere in the MOS I believe it says numbers in the infobox should usually be displayed with numerals rather than words;
 * Don't know that rule but don't have a prob with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it, finally, WP:ORDINAL. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * endashes should be added for the page ranges (currently some have, and some don't);
 * endashes should be added for the year ranges in the titles of the References (as above, some currently have these, but some don't);
 * Heh, don't usually miss that sort of thing, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OCLC numbers could be added for the works that are too old for ISBNs. These can be found at World Cat;
 * Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, wasn't delaying adding those so you'd do it yourself but had to go out and only just returned... Anyway, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * currently the article does not seem to specifically mention when the wing was disbanded, although the infobox does say "1945". Could this be added to the prose?
 * Per first point, the Official Histories hardly ever give actual disbandment dates for major operational formations, you generally just go by when the war ended or when nothing more is mentioned of them before that. For that reason the best I can do with this is make it "c. 1945" in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought that might be the case. I think "c. 1945" would be fine, as such. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * you might consider adding an order of battle using the command structure, this would make it a little clearer for readers just taking a quick glance to see what units were part of the wing. For a working example see the "3rd Division (Australia)" article;
 * I include OOBs where they're spelt out in the sources but as they were so fluid in the war I'm leery of them otherwise -- bit close to OR I find. In this case I could include the official OOB around the time the wing was formed as part of No. 9 Group (from Odgers) but that doesn't seem very useful to me as half the squadrons appear to have transferred to other formations not long after... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. I understand where you are coming from with the OR comment. 3rd Division was different because the sources provide clearly laid out OOBs at different points. In this case, it is unlikely that such things exist, so it is probably best not to include them. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * the Australian War Memorial has a number of short squadron histories up on their website, this might help expand the reference base a little (although having said this, they are largely based on the Official Histories anyway...).AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I have used those in similar articles, generally to give a guide to when a wing was wound down (through transfer or disbandment of its squadrons), I just didn't in this case because we know No. 71 Wing continued right to the end of the war. However I'll have another look and see if the AWM unit histories might yield something useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about this, it is fine for GA. If you decide to take it higher you might want to see if these can be added in just to broaden the ref base a bit, but as is I'm happy with it. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I know why I didn't use the unit histories from AWM, apart from the fact that Odgers says the wing lasted till the end of the war anyway -- the Memorial has a typo in the 8 Squadron history, saying it disbanded in January 1945 (must've been 1946), and there's no unit history at all for 100 Squadron -- so I think it's best we don't bother with them... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * No issues.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues.


 * 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 issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Passes for GA. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many tks for taking the time to review mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)