Talk:No. 81 Wing RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:17, 1 April 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 errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images all lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
 * I usually include it so will do so here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).
 * Duplicate links: No duplicates (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "No. 81 Wing is the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) wing responsible for control of the air." Specifically "control of the air" seemed a little esoteric to me (I'm think of air traffic control for some reason). Might it work better just to say "air supremacy" as per the wikilink used? I think most readers would probably know what that means (it would be wikilinked anyway) (suggestion only).
 * Yeah, I just figured I'd use the term the Air Force uses but they effectively mean the same thing (hence the link) so fair enough... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "when the RAAF presence was reduced to No. 77 Squadron alone...", seems a little redundant as explained a little later in the paragraph (suggestion only).
 * Will have another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No MOS issues seen.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All points cited using WP:RS.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * I realise the wing didn't fight in Korea but I wonder if a sentence is required mentioning No. 77 Sqn's involvement there?
 * Considered that, so if you feel the same way about it, probably worth adding... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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 used are either licenced or in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks good, only a few minor issues to resolve / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, should be able to take care of these in next 24 hrs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, believe that's all done -- tks again for the review, as ever I think the article's improved with your suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)