Talk:Southern Area Command (RAAF)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 July 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 no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action req'd).
 * Linkrot: no dead links (no action req'd)
 * 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.
 * Minor point: "...heavily engaged in anti-submarine patrols, seeking to locate this and any other U-boats in the area...", perhaps add that the search for U-862 was unsuccessful for completeness? (suggestion only - it is implied to the reader but you might spell it out)
 * No 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.
 * 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.
 * All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.


 * 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 have the req'd information / templates.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This one looks fine to me. After a complete read through I couldn't find anything that would prevent its promotion. Just one (minor) prose suggestion above but I'll leave that up to you to consider if you want to reword it. Anotherclown (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks again AC -- implemented that suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)