Talk:No. 41 Squadron RAF

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 41 Squadron RAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Some comments:
  • Many references are missing and need to be added for the large number of paragraphs marked with citation needed tags.
  • For an article this long, the lead should be expanded to a full paragraph so that it summarizes the article. The lead was removed as copyvio. A lead should be written that isn't copied off the 41 Squadron brief history article.
  • Ref to Gillespie doesn't cover the statement about the Canadian aces or the service of the other aces with the squadron, please provide refs supporting their service with the squadron.
  • The notable pilots section should probably be condensed, this article doesn't need to provide biographies of men such as Collishaw who already have wikipedia articles.
  • Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the Roll of Honour section should be removed.
  • The lists of decorations awarded, POWs, escapers/evaders and Guinea Pig Club members should be removed. External links can be added to copies of the lists (if they are present in other places on the web).
  • 41 Squadron Retro external link has connection issue, should be removed if dead.
  • Notes with comments such as Refs #1, #21, #59, etc. should be formatted like those here and should be placed in a separate reflist and section.
  • There are many duplinks in this article that should be removed, see MOS:DUPLINK for more info on this.
  • "The pilots returned from the third without the Commanding Officer" - Is this CO mentioned Geoffrey Hyde?
  • Short citations to books written by Steve Brew should have the year included, as there are two books by that author in the bibliography.

Kges1901 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Failed, because of the issues raised above. If they are all adressed the article can be relisted. Kges1901 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)