Talk:Western 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) 10:17, 23 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):
 * " ... it was at this time the only fighter squadron able to defend Perth and Fremantle...", was No. 77 Sqn the only sqn "able" to do so or the only one "available" to do so (the difference in my mind is that "able" implies that there were other sqns but they lacked the capability) (Minor prose nitpick - suggestion only)
 * Fully agree with your interpretation and the source does make "available" explicit -- tks for picking that up! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No MOS issues I could see.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article seems to be well referenced, 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.
 * Overall all major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.
 * The command spanned a 15-year period including a global conflict so I imagine it's composition would have changed over that period (particularly as the size of the RAAF decreased following demobilization in 1945-46. As such is there any information on the ORBAT around this time to add to the one from 1942?
 * Fair point, I think the common weakness in all these area command articles (and why I don't think most could ever progress beyond GA-class) is that the post-war story is simply not that detailed compared to the WWII story. That's inevitable to an extent but no less frustrating. The shame is that even though most of the relevant ops record books are digitised at the NAA, they don't seem to offer up the official OOBs at any given time after the war. Of course I could probably find info saying such-and-such a sqn was based at Pearce between these dates but I prefer not to do that unless the source is explicit that it was under Western Area's control, and that's rarely mentioned except in the WWII histories. I will double-check if there's any other official Western Area OOBs for WWII at least... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries Ian, if its not in the sources then I'm happy it meets this criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 24 July 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 most have the req'd information / templates.
 * Captions look fine.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Only a couple of very minor points to deal with / discuss, otherwise this looks to be in good shape. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks as always for your review, AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, supporting now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)