Talk:No. 77 Squadron RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 14:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, 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

The overall article is well-written. Here is a list of grammar or sentence errors I discovered and suggestions.

1. "suffering twenty-five per cent casualties during the war" - Isn't "per cent" spelled "percent"? The article's talk page does not mention if this article is written in Australian-English or British-English, so I would like this clarified.

• I suppose I write in AusEng given my nationality but to be honest I don't find too many differences between AusEng and BritEng. In BritEng I think "per cent" is more common than "percent" and I assumed it was the same in AusEng. If I'm wrong about that I'd be happy to change it.

2. "The squadron re-equipped with CAC Sabres at Williamtown in November 1956" - It's just a suggestion, but I would recommend adding "was" in between "squadron" and "re-equipped".

• Fair point but sources often seem to express it this way. I tend to prefer it as it seems a more active form of expression.

3. "the same month that the Federal government determined to" - It seems "was" or "became" is missing in between "government" and "determined"?

• Actually I really meant "decided" -- reworded.

4. "the squadron's casualty rate in Korea was twenty-five per cent killed or captured" - Again, isn't "per cent" spelled "percent"?

• Per prev.

5. "Two Sabres collided in mid-air on 22 July but both pilots ejected safely" - Isn't a comma missing before "but"?

• Think it could be argued either way but no prob using the comma.

6. "as advancing UN troops closed on the Yalu River" - Again, just a suggestion, but I recommend adding "in" between "closed" and "on".

• Done.

7. The years mentioned in "Battle honours" section should be written in accordance with MOS:DATEFORMAT. So instead of "New Guinea 1943–1944" it should read "New Guinea 1943–44".

• I agree from a MOS perspective but OTOH I'm loathe to alter the format used in the source because it is after all an official award.

8. I'd like to talk about how the numbers used in this article are written. It correctly mentions all numbers between 1-9 in words per WP:NUMERAL, but NUMERAL also says you should not switch between writing numbers in words and numbers in the same sentence, so I would suggest changing "destroying 3,700 buildings, 1,408 vehicles, ninety-eight railway engines and carriages, and sixteen bridges" to "destroying 3,700 buildings, 1,408 vehicles, 98 railway engines and carriages, and 16 bridges".

• Done.

• 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. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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

The article uses a bunch of different sources, all of which are arranged alphabetically and contain the necessary source/reference information.

• 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

The article is broad in its coverage, stays on topic and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

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

The article is neutral with no personal opinions or statements.

• Stable

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

The article is stable, its content does not significantly change from day to day (with exception of those edits made in preparation of the GA-nomination) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars or content disputes.

• Illustrated

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

The article is nicely illustrated with ten images, all of which contain the necessary copyright/status information.

• Pass, fail or hold?

The article meets the GA-criteria, but would like the GA-nominators response on the points mentioned in the "Well-written" section before it's listed, so I'm going to put it on hold. Good job people. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this one up so quickly, Jonas -- I'll aim to respond to your points in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, responded to everything and made some edits. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think all the issues are settled now. I'm going to pass it. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)