Talk:No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be taking this article for review. I should have my initial comments up within a day. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Link Southern Area Command?
- I was going to leave that for a dedicated article at some later stage but happy to link it for now to Air Force Training Group RAAF, of which it was the precursor.
- I would expect the first link to Essendon (formed at Essendon, Victoria,) to be to the city, and the airport link to be given at " Essendon aerodrome".
- Good point, will do.
- "Flying doctor Clyde Fenton," - this sentence seems like a non-sequitur. Why pick out this instructor over any others, one man out of 50? If his article is correct, he was the first flying doctor in the Northwest Territory - perhaps say something like "Clyde Fenton, previously the first flying doctor of the Northwest Territory," or something, to give a better feeling of notability, if this is why he is included.
- Heh, yes, bit lazy there -- will think of something to elaborate.
- "King was posted to command No. 5 EFTS" Do we know who took over from him?
- We do, I just restricted it to King as the notable one (in WP as well as real-world terms).
- Article says that 200 men were graduated by late 1940. Do we know how many went through the program the entire time it was in operation?
- 'Fraid not.
- Why was it combined with another school in 1942?
- This sort of rationalisation wasn't uncommon (see No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF for example) but there's no specific reason mentioned re. No. 3 EFTS.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Short and sweet. A few comments above on areas where I would like to see a bit of expansion/context. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Many tks for taking a look, Dana. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. It would still be nice to have some further detail in a couple of spots, but I completely understand if sources are thin on the ground :) Thanks for the quick work, Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dana. I think I've trawled all available sources, so unless someone writes a book on the EFTSs, the only other thing will be when/if the National Archives gets round to digitising the unit's operations record book...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. It would still be nice to have some further detail in a couple of spots, but I completely understand if sources are thin on the ground :) Thanks for the quick work, Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Many tks for taking a look, Dana. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Short and sweet. A few comments above on areas where I would like to see a bit of expansion/context. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail: