Talk:No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 15:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
- Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
- Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
- Alt text: Images all have alt text [5] (no action required).
- Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [6] (no action required).
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Is there a word missing here: "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and Central Flying School (CFS)...", specifically should it be "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and the Central Flying School (CFS)..."?
- I can't speak for all the armed forces, but in the RAAF they seem to avoid the definite article for units even if they're not numbered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed the Army is notorious for it!
- I can't speak for all the armed forces, but in the RAAF they seem to avoid the definite article for units even if they're not numbered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Group Captain Eaton remained in command...", should probably be "Eaton remained in command..." following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
- Agreed, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Otherwise the prose is of high quality and is
mostlyMOS compliant.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- All major points cited using WP:RS.
- Consistent citation style used throughout.
- No issues with OR.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major points are covered without going into undue detail.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- No issues here.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- All recent edits look constructive.
- 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 used are all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- This article is of a high standard and is very close to meeting the GA criteria, just a couple of very minor points to deal with / or disccuss. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tks for taking the time to review, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Too easy, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers mate, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Too easy, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Tks for taking the time to review, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)