Talk:No. 76 Wing RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2012 (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 all worked;
 * images lack alt text. It is not a GA requirement, but you might consider adding it in;
 * spotchecks of the article did not reveal any copyright issues.

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):
 * generally looks fine, but I have a couple of queries (below);
 * "In the early part of 1945, monsoonal weather in Darwin reduced the number of missions flown by No. 76 Wing." Are there any figures that can be used to illustrate how reduced these were? E.g. "in the month of January, the wing was only able to mount 14...as opposed to the previous month when 86 were flown..."
 * are there any details available that cover the wing's losses during the war, either aircraft or personnel?
 * did any of the wing's personnel receive any significant awards as a result of their service in the wing?
 * Heh, I tend to squeeze every bit of info out of the sources that I can when it comes to these wing histories, as professional military academics don't seem as interested in them as they are in squadron and other small unit histories. As to losses, even the Wing Operations Books don't tend to go into that explicitly. So I'm afraid all I can do re. the above queries is add the alt text, which I normally do anyway but forgot this time round. Sorry... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I had to make sure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Tks for taking the time to review, mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)