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)

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

Criteria

• 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)
• 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 is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • All recent edits look constructive.

• 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)
    • Many tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)