Talk:No. 90 Wing RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:52, 28 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 one issue with reference consolidation:
 * Stephens, Going Solo, p. 249 Multiple references contain the same content
 * That was lingering from an earlier version and is no longer necessary -- tks for picking it up! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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).
 * Tks for reminding me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues (no action required).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "...Australia agreed in April 1950 that it could commit a squadron...", "could" or "would"?
 * Altered -- this was the Australian Defence Committee agreeing amongst its members what it could do, not agreeing officially to Britain's request at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS.
 * No issues with OR.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
 * I wonder if Operation Kingly Pile (21 Feb 56) should be mentioned as it was the most successful of the more than 4,000 sorties completed by the Lincolns? According to Coulthard-Clark, The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles, 2010, p. 270, 18 CTs were apparently killed in a raid conducted by No. 1 Sqn RAAF and Canberras from No. 12 Sqn RAF. Interestingly this raid does not rate a mention in the official history though. (suggestion only).
 * You're right, it was a big thing for 1 Sqn and the Malayan involvement in general, and Stephens and Eather both mention it; I just didn't use it here it because it took place well after the disbandment of 90 Wing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick that up - blast. Yes you are of course completely right it shouldn't be included here. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 30 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 seem fine to me. One is currently being discussed as "possibly unfree" but that is a separate process and I think its appropriate for it to be determined in that forum.
 * That's about how I see it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks very good to me. Only a couple of minor issues / suggestions to deal with / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully all done now -- tks for reviewing, AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Too easy, passing now. Quite an interesting article about one of the more obscure episodes in RAAF history. Anotherclown (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, much appreciated. I first heard of this wing way back in 2007 when I was writing my first serious RAAF bio, on George Jones -- it's taken till this long to get reliable formation and disbandment dates for an article... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)