Talk:No. 72 Wing RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 May 2013 (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 issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action req'd).
 * Alt text: Images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * Should've remembered that after the last review... ;-) Wilco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copy violations or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "No. 72 Wing was a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) wing of World War II...", wonder if this is better: "No. 72 Wing was a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) that served during World War II."
 * I always think of "served" as pertaining to people rather than units -- how about "that operated during World War II"?
 * Yes that would work fine. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Missing word here I think: "...No. 72 Wing took part in the defence of Torres Strait...", should it be: "No. 72 Wing took part in the defence of the Torres Strait..."
 * It's funny, I know we always say "the Pacific Ocean" and "the Murray River" but I thought the definite article was omitted in front of "Bass Strait", "Torres Strait" and so on...
 * I think it may be subjective but admit I don't know what the rule is that determines when to use it. Interestingly later in the article you wrote: "No. 86 Squadron (P-40 Kittyhawk fighters), and No. 12 Squadron (A-31 Vengeance dive bombers), the wing's purpose was to assist in the defence of the Torres Strait." I'm happy to leave it up to you but think it would be best to be consistent, thats all. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed -- didn't notice that, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR.
 * Not sure about the format for ADB ref. Couple of issues: firstly article's author was Chris Clark so wonder if that should be included in the citation, secondly should this be listed as a long cite in the references section and just use a short cite in the notes section?
 * Used to do just that but since it's the online copy I'm using I tend to just cite inline now -- it should be a full citation though, you're right.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * Level of coverage seems sufficient given the limited operational service the wing saw.


 * 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.:
 * No issues here.


 * 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:
 * Images are all PD and seem appropriate to the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Only a couple of fairly minor points above. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Always appreciate your reviews, AC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Responded above. Anotherclown (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)