Talk:United Arab Emirates Air Force/GA1

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

Unfortunetly, this article does not meet the scope of a good article.
 * The lead should be perhaps three times the length; although perhaps suitable for an article this short, a longer lead is needed since the article should be longer.
 * The history section has vast lacks. Surely there must be much more to write about the airforce. Establishment of bases, any armed conflicts, procurement and acquisition of aircraft, major restructuring etc. should be included. I would expect the history section to be perhaps at least five, maybe ten times the current length. Multiple sources need to be consulted to establish necessary scope.
 * 'Current state' seems to cover a lot of history. Perhaps also make a 'future' section.
 * The 'structure' section should be converted to prose with a description of the various subdivisions.
 * With $, what is meant? US? If so, specify it.
 * The article uses weasel words like 'recently'. Always specify times statically.
 * Do not transcribe all-caps from sources. Instead, convert to normal capitalization.
 * Most of the footnotes are encyclopedic and relevant enough that they should be included in the main text.
 * The link to 'Military of the United Arab Emirates' should be weaved into the article text, so the 'see also' section can be removed.
 * Inclusion of multiple aircraft would make the article better (for instance File:030410-N-0295M-010.jpg. Also, a commonscat should be added.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * See above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is far to short. A lot of work needs to be put into expanding structure, operations, information on bases, converting the structure list into prose, added imagery and a extensive history section, perhaps even with a full-length sub-article for more detail on the history. This will require a full rewrite of the article, so it is better to sit down, expand and then re-nominate for GA again. The best of luck on the road ahead. Arsenikk (talk)  22:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is far to short. A lot of work needs to be put into expanding structure, operations, information on bases, converting the structure list into prose, added imagery and a extensive history section, perhaps even with a full-length sub-article for more detail on the history. This will require a full rewrite of the article, so it is better to sit down, expand and then re-nominate for GA again. The best of luck on the road ahead. Arsenikk (talk)  22:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is far to short. A lot of work needs to be put into expanding structure, operations, information on bases, converting the structure list into prose, added imagery and a extensive history section, perhaps even with a full-length sub-article for more detail on the history. This will require a full rewrite of the article, so it is better to sit down, expand and then re-nominate for GA again. The best of luck on the road ahead. Arsenikk (talk)  22:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)