Talk:North-Western Area Command/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 23:43, 1 August 2015 (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 a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
 * Grose, An Awkward Truth, p. 81 Multiple references contain the same content
 * Should've been different pages -- tks for picking up.
 * Stephens, The Royal Australian Air Force, pp. 145–146 Multiple references contain the same content
 * This was a dup -- tks again.
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd).
 * Linkrot: two dead links :
 * Australia in the War of 1939–1945: Series Three (Air) Volume I – Royal Australian Air Force 1939–1942 (info) [awm.gov.au]
 * Australia in the War of 1939–1945: Series Three (Air) Volume II – Air War Against Japan 1943–1945 (info)
 * Fixed, tks.
 * Alt text: images all have alt text (no action req'd).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) (no action req'd).
 * Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The article looks to be very well written to me and I couldn't find any issues with the prose.
 * There is a minor inconsistency in the presentation of terms here: "As George Odgers put it in the official history of the RAAF in the Pacific theatre, the North Western Area Campaign", specifically "North Western" vs "North-Western" although I'm unsure if its incorrect (both may indeed be correct depending on their usage in the sources of cse).
 * I've seen the term written "North-Western", "North Western", and "Northwestern" but prefer the first rendering. Rather than pipe North Western Area Campaign I've just created a redirect.
 * "...fourteen CAC Wirraways of No. 12 Squadron at Darwin and Batchelor..." it might add to the context to make it clear that the Wirraway was an obsolete type.
 * I used "obsolescent" because I think "obsolete" means out of use, rather than just outmoded.
 * Yes one of the voices in my head was telling me there was a difference when I was typing it... Happy with the change of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No other MOS issues I could see.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well referenced to WP:RS.
 * Question re formatting of ref: "Eaton, Brian. "Headlam, Frank (1914–1976)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. Australian National University. Retrieved 31 July 2015." I'm assuming you have deliberately omitted the date and volume due to the difference b/n the printed and online versions of the ADB? If so I can see your reasoning for doing this (although I do the opposite and tend to obtain a copy of the printed version and use that, maybe for no other reason than because I may be a luddite and prefer printed sources...). If you didn't have a philosophical reason for omitting date and volume number you might consider doing so, otherwise pls disregard (suggestion only).
 * Fair question but I tend to consistently treat the online edition as just that and use the cite web convention, with a retrieval date rather than a book publishing date/volume.
 * No worries, makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No issues with OR I could see.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
 * Most major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.
 * Re the para starting "On 19 February, NWA's complement of aircraft..." the initial lack of air defence resources available to NWA Comd is certainly alluded to here but I wonder if it should be more explicitly spelled out? I agree this isn't the place to explain the bombing of Darwin in detail but perhaps half a sentence wouldn't go astray here? It would probably also help explain the temporary stationing of US fighters to provide for the area's defence until Australian squadrons became available (a state of affairs which the narrative adequately recounts but perhaps doesn't state in black in white - at least that was the impression I got when reading through it). - pls consider this more a suggestion as the narrative seems more than adequate for GA in my opinion.
 * I was wary of adding too much detail on the first raids but fleshed it out a bit.
 * Yes that's a fair concern, the changes you made seem effective to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues I could see.


 * 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 seem to be free / PD and mostly have the req'd information / templates.
 * Do File:NWA0450Bladin1943.jpg, File:056420Cole1943.jpg, and File:21 Squadron RAAF Liberator aircrew Fenton NT Mar 1945 AWM NWA0730.jpg each need some sort of PD US tag?
 * Probably -- done.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * I found this probably the most interesting of the series of area comd articles due to the nature of the air war in Northern Australia. Overall, it is an excellent article and other than a few minor technical issues easily passes the GA criteria. I have included a few cmts IRT coverage but realistically these are really more suggestions for improvement should you wish to go beyond GA. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, this is the only area command that seems to have had a campaign named after it...! Many thanks as usual for looking over it, AC.  As well as actioning your comments above, I took the opportunity to tweak a few things off my own bat.  This one might even be worth a shot at A-Class given its detail, but I think I'll wait until I've got the whole series to GA before considering that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, those changes look good to me so I'm passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)