Talk:No. 8 Service Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Tks for picking this up, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2012 (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 (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required).
 * Linkrot: external links check out (no action required).
 * Alt text: Images all have alt text (no action required).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is of high quality and is MOS compliant.
 * This seems a little awkward to me: "...maintaining detachments at RAAF Stations Bundaberg and Amberley in Queensland, and Richmond and, later, Coffs Harbour in New South Wales...", perhaps consider something like: "...maintaining detachments at RAAF Stations Bundaberg and Amberley in Queensland, as well as at Richmond and, later, Coffs Harbour in New South Wales..." (suggestion only)
 * Fully agree and will implement your suggestion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * Consistent citation style used throughout.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * All major points are covered without going into undue detail.


 * 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.:
 * All recent edits look constructive.
 * 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 all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Although I have made one suggestion IRT prose this article meets the GA criteria in my opinion and I could find little if anything to fault it. As usual it is well written, concise and indicative of the writer's attention to detail. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Many tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)