Talk:No. 90 Wing RAAF/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ian Rose in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 10:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Progression

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

Technical review

edit

Criteria

edit
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • "...Australia agreed in April 1950 that it could commit a squadron...", "could" or "would"?
      • Altered -- this was the Australian Defence Committee agreeing amongst its members what it could do, not agreeing officially to Britain's request at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
    • I wonder if Operation Kingly Pile (21 Feb 56) should be mentioned as it was the most successful of the more than 4,000 sorties completed by the Lincolns? According to Coulthard-Clark, The Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles, 2010, p. 270, 18 CTs were apparently killed in a raid conducted by No. 1 Sqn RAAF and Canberras from No. 12 Sqn RAF. Interestingly this raid does not rate a mention in the official history though. (suggestion only).
  • 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 seem fine to me. One is currently being discussed as "possibly unfree" but that is a separate process and I think its appropriate for it to be determined in that forum.