Jump to content

Talk:No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a crack at this one. Will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "...in response to Australia's participation in the Empire Air Training Scheme..." --> "...as the RAAF expanded its pilot training facilities in response to Australia's participation in the Empire Air Training Scheme"?
  • Looking at that paragraph, we already use the term "pilot training facility" in the next sentence, and explain how the number of schools grew, so I feel we're covered... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archerfield was home to private aviation clubs and schools including the Queensland Aero Club and Airwork Ltd. It was the airfield's position as the hub of civilian flight instruction in the state that led to it becoming the base for the second flying school the RAAF raised during World War II." (perhaps join the two sentences with an "and" after "Ltd.") --> this might help the narrative flow
  • Those sound fair enough, will take a look later today.
  • is there a link that could be added for Central Area Command, so that it is consistent with Northern Area Command?
  • It's on my long list so we could red link it, just no guarantees when I'd get to it (then again maybe a red link will push me)... ;-)
  • do we know who took over from Phillips after he was killed?
  • Yes, I just didn't mention him 'cos he's not WP-notable (I know the inaugural CO isn't either but I generally mention those anyway). I could put Phillipps' successor in but then I think I'd probably need to mention the others as well...
  • The linked document specifically says "United States Army Forces in Australia" -- hope it's not a typo in there! Many tks for looking this over, Rupert -- should be back here later today to make necessary edits. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • 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:
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: