Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 02:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions

Not really much for me to pick at here, which is a good thing but also makes a reviewer question whether or not they've done a good job. But anyway, here goes...

• "the air force" --> not sure about the capitalisation here. At least from an organisational perspective, in the Army we would capitalise in this case as a de facto proper noun. For instance, where one is refering to a generic organisation (any "air force") we don't, but where it is unambigiously a specific brand of air force, for instance the Royal Australian Air Force or the US Air Force, we would use "the Air Force". I'll leave it up to you, though, as it is not a major issue (I note, though, that later you use "the Army");
  • That sounds sensible; I've changed this to capitals. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Valston Hancock travelled to the United States" --> perhaps add a comma after "Hancock";
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• "held at Fort Worth, Texas on 4 September 1968" --> second comma after "Texas";
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• slightly repetitious: "significant advance in the RAAF's " and "a significant improvement over". Perhaps reword slightly?
  • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• was there a reason for this: "In November 1971, two Phantoms flew non-stop from Amberley to RAAF Base Darwin"? For instance, was it to test the aircraft's endurance/range?
  • The source highlights it, but doesn't really explain why! I've just removed it. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• "If the Phantoms had remained in service they would have been used to provide close air support for the Army". I wonder if this should be clarified just a little. For instance, "would have been re-roled to provide close air support for the Army, as the F-111s assumed the strike role";
  • That's as much as the source says, unfortunately. I've added the 're-rolled' as that's a logical extension of the sources though. I think that the F-111s also had a close air support role (though whether this was a good idea is open to interpretation!). Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, that sounds problematic. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• "subsequently converted to specialist" --> "subsequently converted into specialist"?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• the images lack alt text and while it is not a specific GA requirement, you might consider adding it in. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Added. Thanks a lot for your careful review - you picked up a lot of stuff I'd missed! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• 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:

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Looks good, I'm happy that this article meets the GA requirements. Well done, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)