Talk:David Evans (RAAF officer)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

This is a very good article. I've got some comments for areas where it could be improved, but none are major:

• "a VIP captain" - this sounds rather more glamorous than the job probably was! Something like 'an aircraft captain' would work better
  • You might be right but the duty was transporting VIPs and this is the expression a couple of sources use.
    • Fair enough then - I guess that the job involved extra responsibilities Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Is there any significance to Evans being "the very last name in the 1947 Air Force List"? - does this mean that he was the most junior officer in the RAAF at the time? (or something else)
  • Yes, it means most junior -- perhaps I'll reword it to that and not bother with the direct quote, eh?
• I've tweaked the article's wording to clarify that he was a member of RAAF Squadron Berlin Air Lift
  • Tks mate; when I first drafted it there was no specific mention of the squadron in my sources but later it did come up somewhere and I just hadn't fine-tuned it.
    • There's some additional stuff on him in Operation Pelican which I'll add in tomorrow Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• "his duties including an exchange posting with the Royal New Zealand Air Force from May 1951" - do we know when this exchange was completed?
  • Yes, July 1953 -- but I see that might not be obvious as written, will tweak a bit.
• "Evans also dabbled in politics" - 'dabbled' seems a rather mild term for this - Eden-Monaro is a 'bellwether seat' and candidates put their all into winning it
  • Yes you're quite right; I used "dabbled" in my first draft because he tried it once and that was it but the seat was indeed vital so I'll probably reword before ACR. Many thanks for your review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I've suggested some modifications in the comments above

   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) 04:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)