Talk:No. 391 Squadron RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this late tonight. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well-written?

Comments and suggestions.

1. Like I mentioned in the GA-review of No. 91 Wing RAAF I suggest using a paragraph or two in the lead.

I thought that was a good idea for 91 Wing given that article's length but this is about half the size so I felt a one-paragraph lead was okay. It's similar to many other GA-level articles I've put together, especially ones (like this) that I don't plan to take further than GAN.

2. I know you just explained some things about links on Ian Fleming's talk page, but why not link Japan, South Korea and Australia?

Again, these are present-day countries that I don't think need linking (nor, in my experience, do reviewers at A-Class and FAC). If for instance I'd been talking about Empire of Japan, I'd certainly link it, but here we mean the modern political entity of Japan.

3. "It comprised 299 officers and men, forty Mustangs, three CAC Wirraways, two Douglas C-47 Dakotas and two Austers" - WP:NUMERAL says you should not switch between writing numbers in words and numbers in the same sentence.

Heh, not sure most sources would do that but I don't want to go against WP MOS, so will change it.

Is it verifiable with no original research?
Is it broad in its coverage?
Is it neutral?
Is it stable?
Is it illustrated?

Another great article Ian. It's totally worth GA-status, but would like some comments on my three points. Good job. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very kind Jonas, and I appreciate you taking the time to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]