Talk:No. 80 Wing RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot c Alt text

• no dabs found by the tools;
• ext links all work;
• alt text is present.

Initial comments/suggestions

I can't find much to fault this article on. I believe that it is well written, referenced, illustrated, etc. I have the following comments/suggestions (although they don't affect the review):

• an image in the infobox might improve the presentation a little if something relevant could be found;
• currently the article is only in one category. Perhaps it could be added to a couple more, for instance "Military units and formations established in 1944" and "Military units and formations diseastablished in 1945"?
• you might consider using {{command structure}} such as has been used in the 3rd Division (Australia) article. This would quickly give a reader an understanding of what squadrons were part of the wing;
• with the locations in the References, you might consider adding state/country because some of them are a bit obscure. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• I fixed a couple of small issues, please check that you are happy with my tweaks.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• No issues.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

• No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• 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':

• No issues.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Passes for GA, excellent work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)