Talk:No. 81 Wing RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Progression

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

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
• Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Images all lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not a GA criteria).
  • I usually include it so will do so here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues [6] (no action required).
• Duplicate links: No duplicates (no action required).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "No. 81 Wing is the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) wing responsible for control of the air." Specifically "control of the air" seemed a little esoteric to me (I'm think of air traffic control for some reason). Might it work better just to say "air supremacy" as per the wikilink used? I think most readers would probably know what that means (it would be wikilinked anyway) (suggestion only).
    • Yeah, I just figured I'd use the term the Air Force uses but they effectively mean the same thing (hence the link) so fair enough... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "when the RAAF presence was reduced to No. 77 Squadron alone...", seems a little redundant as explained a little later in the paragraph (suggestion only).
    • Will have another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • No MOS issues seen.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

  • All points cited using WP:RS.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
  • I realise the wing didn't fight in Korea but I wonder if a sentence is required mentioning No. 77 Sqn's involvement there?
    • Considered that, so if you feel the same way about it, probably worth adding... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

  • No issues here.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• 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:

  • Images used are either licenced or in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Looks good, only a few minor issues to resolve / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks mate, should be able to take care of these in next 24 hrs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Okay, believe that's all done -- tks again for the review, as ever I think the article's improved with your suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Looks good. Passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)