Talk:No. 80 Wing RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 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;
 * alt text is present.

Initial comments/suggestions
I can't find much to fault this article on. I believe that it is well written, referenced, illustrated, etc. I have the following comments/suggestions (although they don't affect the review):
 * an image in the infobox might improve the presentation a little if something relevant could be found;
 * currently the article is only in one category. Perhaps it could be added to a couple more, for instance "Military units and formations established in 1944" and "Military units and formations diseastablished in 1945"?
 * you might consider using command structure such as has been used in the 3rd Division (Australia) article. This would quickly give a reader an understanding of what squadrons were part of the wing;
 * with the locations in the References, you might consider adding state/country because some of them are a bit obscure. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I fixed a couple of small issues, please check that you are happy with my tweaks.


 * 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, excellent work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)