Jump to content

Talk:No. 79 Wing RAAF/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

To my slight surprise, I've never edited this article, so I think that I can review it neutrally. My comments on it are:

  • "Its combat units included" - this makes it sound like there might have been more than just the four squadrons.
    • The word 'included' is the problem here: it's often used as a dodge to signal imprecision (I use it all the time at work!), but here you know exactly which combat units were in the wing. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Beaufighters attacked enemy shipping" - replace 'enemy' with 'Japanese'
  • "On 19 April, Eaton organised a large raid against Su, Dutch Timor," - did he plan the raid on this day, or was it conducted on this day? This sentence should also be split into two sentences
  • "On the day of the Allied landings, 22 April, the Mitchells and Beaufighters made a daylight raid on Dili, Portuguese Timor. The ground assault met little opposition, credited in part to the air bombardment in the days leading up to it." - this is a bit confusing, as it implies that Dili was the target of the ground assault. I'd suggest tweaking this.
  • If possible, you might also want to mention whether the raids on Timor were conducted as a diversionary operation or whether they aimed to destroy Japanese forces on the island that could have interfered with the Allied landings (or both)
  • "attacked enemy positions in Timor" - see above
  • You might want to note that No. 2 and No. 18 Squadrons were the only RAAF units which operated Mitchells.
    • Sounds plausible, will check for a source explicitly mentioning that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The RAAF Museum says this. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, first thing I checked too -- great minds (I say that a lot to you I know -- scary!). I realise it only mentioned 2 and 18 but I'd prefer it was explicit about them being the only ones, I've been burnt by assumptions before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Page 154 of Wilson, Stewart (1994). Military Aircraft of Australia. Weston Creek: Aerospace Publications. ISBN 1875671080. states it explicitly. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the wing actually deployed to New Britain? The attack on the Isuzu took place well within the NEI, well out of range of this island.

Assessment against GA criteria

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No._79_Wing_RAAF/GA1&oldid=601489142"