Talk:No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 04:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
• Linkrot: external links check reveals one dead link [4]:
  • Manned ISR: The RF-111C (info) [airforce.gov.au]
    • Typo in the url, tks for finding it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
  • Wilco, tks for reminder. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • In the lead "From 1942 until 1947 it took on the role of administering the entire Amberley base...", perhaps more simply "From 1942 until 1947 it took on the role of administering the base..." (suggestion only).
    • Compromised -- removed "entire"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Similar here: " In the aftermath of World War II, No. 3 AD continued to command and administer the entire base until the re-establishment of Station Headquarters Amberley...", perhaps consider: "In the aftermath of World War II, No. 3 AD continued to command and administer the base until the re-establishment of Station Headquarters Amberley..."
  • This seems a little awkward: "The depot had no familiarity dealing with significant damage to the Chinook when one of the helicopters crashed following an engine failure in 1975, and only completed the repairs in 1981." Perhaps consider: "However, the depot had no familiarity dealing with significant damage to the Chinook, and when one of the helicopters crashed following an engine failure in 1975 the repairs were not completed until 1981..." or something like that.
    • Done two above -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "From the 1980s, No. 3 AD's organisation included a maintenance management squadron made up of individual flights responsible for equipment maintenance, engine maintenance, and airframe maintenance, the last-mentioned including armament and de-seal/re-seal." Perhaps consider wording it more simply as: "From the 1980s, No. 3 AD's organisation included a maintenance management squadron made up of individual flights responsible for equipment, engine, and airframe maintenance, the last-mentioned including armament and de-seal/re-seal..." (suggestion only)
    • Was the only thing making explicit it was equipment maintenance, engine maintenance, and airframe maintenance? How about "the maintenance of equipment, engines, and airframes..."? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • That is much better than my suggestion - I've been bold and made the change so pls check it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

  • All major points appear to be cited using WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR that I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • Level of coverage seems appropriate.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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 all seem to be PD and have the req'd information.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Article easily meets the GA criteria in my opinion, only a couple of very minor technical and prose points. Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Many tks as always, AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • No worries, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)