Talk:No. 8 Service Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for picking this up, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action required).
Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action required).
Alt text: Images all have alt text [5] (no action required).
Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google reveal no issues [6] (no action required).

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
- The prose is of high quality and is MOS compliant.
- This seems a little awkward to me: "...maintaining detachments at RAAF Stations Bundaberg and Amberley in Queensland, and Richmond and, later, Coffs Harbour in New South Wales...", perhaps consider something like: "...maintaining detachments at RAAF Stations Bundaberg and Amberley in Queensland, as well as at Richmond and, later, Coffs Harbour in New South Wales..." (suggestion only)
  - Fully agree and will implement your suggestion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- All major points cited using WP:RS.
- Consistent citation style used throughout.
- No issues with OR.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All major points are covered without going into undue detail.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- 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 all in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
- Although I have made one suggestion IRT prose this article meets the GA criteria in my opinion and I could find little if anything to fault it. As usual it is well written, concise and indicative of the writer's attention to detail. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]