Talk:RAAF area commands/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I will review this article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * overall, this looks quite good. I only have a few points: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the article is well referenced, using reliable sources, there doesn't seem to be any original research;
 * the article seems comprehensive and broad in its coverage;
 * the article is well written and nothing stood out to me as being grammatically incorrect;
 * a Google search for random paragraphs did not reveal any copyright issues;
 * there are no duplicate links or dabs;
 * external links all work;
 * the article seems stable/there are no edit wars;
 * the article seems neutral in its approach;
 * suitable images are used to illustrate the article (the maps are a great addition);
 * Tks Rupert, I think they're pretty amateurish myself but it was the only way to get a consistent 'look', aside from the fact that I wasn't certain of the copyright status of the source maps.
 * "File:Caf goble.jpg": appears to have a conflicting licence warning on it. Would you mind taking a look?
 * Yikes, it was a lot simpler when I uploaded it years ago. I've tweaked and (legitimately I think) suppressed all those warnings.
 * Cheers, looks good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the placement of the table in the lead. I feel that it could probably be summarized by a single sentence in the lead, and then the table could be placed in the body of the article somewhere. Thoughts?
 * I was in two minds about the table placement myself (it's a summary, so is it best in the lead or at the end?), as well as the order for the maps (should the lead show the longest-standing arrangement, or the initial four-command arrangement and then the succeeding five-command arrangement appears in the main body?) I am planning to take this to ACR, so could we leave it till then and get a few more opinions?
 * Yes, happy with that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * suggest linking "War Cabinet" to War Cabinet
 * Will do, tks.
 * "geographically based" --> "geographically-based"?
 * I gather that you don't generally hyphenate after "ly", but happy to be proved wrong... ;-) Many tks for review, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, fair point. Not sure I agree with it, but that is most certainly what the style guide says. ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)