Wikipedia:Peer review/Air Combat Group RAAF/archive1

Air Combat Group RAAF

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it is ready for FA-Class, I do not just want an automated peer review, I want reviews form actual users for a better than mechanical answer to the article.

Thanks, C YCLONIC W HIRLWIND  talk 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * First thing that's evident to me is that it has too many mini-sections - 23 headings for a 23Kbyte article feels waay over the top.
 * I would also suggest reducing the lead per WP:LEAD - perhaps three paragraphs.
 * "Active" field in infobox needs to use en-dash, not hyphen per WP:DASH.
 * "It comprises.." - "The Group comprises..."
 * "No. 78 Wing RAAF is headquartered at RAAF Williamtown." + "No. 81 Wing RAAF is headquartered at RAAF Williamtown." repetitive, stilted and not particularly engaging - I'm not convinced this level of detail needs to be in the lead.
 * "It is accountable..." - this can definitely be confusing as you just spoke about FACDU but presumably by It here you mean the ACG.
 * Link the aircraft type the first time in the lead, not the second time.
 * I think you could easily merge "Establishment and purpose" with "Responsibilities and bases"
 * 2000 ->2,000.
 * "NSW 2314" - NSW shouldn't be used without explanation and do I need the postcode?
 * There's definitely too much in the lead because as I read the sections in Training and operational history section (all of which could be merged) I read a lot of the lead again although, oddly, in less detail - I think it's the wrong way round.
 * "It has 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia." in resp & bases section, " One hundred forty-five aircraft, 163 aircrew, and around 2000 personnel make up the ACG.[2][3]" in the structure section. Repetitive.
 * I would number citations numerically unless there's a good reason not to (you have a [3][2][16] for instance)...
 * You abbreviate OCA and DCA but never use the abbreviations.
 * Same with IFF. And you abbreviate IASSF twice.
 * Comments
 * Initially in the lead you should spell out RAAF so that readers know what you're referring to. As it stands you assume the readers know what RAAF stands for, this can be viewed as jargon.
 * The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, you have an entire paragraph devoted to the various unit numbers and wing numbers and the location of these squadrons. I don't think this belongs in the lead, it is too technical and should be part of the Responsibilities and bases heading.
 * Combine Headings "Establishment and purpose" with "Responsibilites and bases". Purpose and responsibilities go hand in hand and in response to the above critique that there are too many sections (which I agree with), this is a way to start condensing the sections.
 * Two stub paragraphs in Responsibilities and bases heading, should be condensed to avoid single or double-sentence paragraphs.
 * Intro to Training and Operational history is also two-sentence paragraph. Try to expand.
 * watch out for places where you write out numbers using letters and then write them out using numbers, for example: "and its 14 aircraft were drawn from No. 81 Wing's three frontline squadrons." It's fine to have No. 81 be numerical because it is the name of the unit, but you need to be consistent with the 14 and the three.  Pick one or the other and stick with it.
 * The prose throughout the article is fine, it's well written and cogent if a bit dry, but we're not trying to entertain here.
 * refer to MOS:IMAGES photos should alternate right to left rather than the way you have them laid out.

Those are some of my thoughts, hope they help. H1nkles (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)