Talk:No. 75 Squadron RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 12 April 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)
 * one dab according to the tools, I'm not sure how to fix this one: ;
 * has fixed that.
 * Excellent. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ext links all work;
 * you might consider adding alt text, but it is not a GA requirement:
 * I think I'll leave that as the status of alt text at the moment seems unsettled (I'll add it if the article goes to an ACR though)
 * No worries, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * no copyright issues:

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in the Offensive operations section, "couldn't deploy..." (maybe remove the contraction - "could not deploy");
 * Fixed
 * "newly-established" per WP:HYPHEN "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb"
 * Fixed
 * "newly-developed" - as above;
 * Fixed
 * slightly inconsistent capitalisation: "the squadron's" and then "While the Squadron's";
 * Fixed (all now lower case)


 * 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:
 * Generally seems fine, but I think "File:Raaf 75sqn.jpg" might need source information if you want to take this article beyond GA.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks quite good, just a couple of minor issues. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review. I think that I and Newm30 have addressed your comments Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)