Jump to content

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
        • Indeed the Army is notorious for it!
    • "Group Captain Eaton remained in command...", should probably be "Eaton remained in command..." following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
    • Otherwise the prose is of high quality and is mostly MOS 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.