Talk:No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 19, 2014.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other editorial assistance.
WikiProject Aviation (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

  • According to the toolbox, it's possible there's a better link for "Canopy believed cause of Sabre pilot deaths (info) [nla.gov.au]".
    • Interesting, the automated dab checker didn't send me a reminder this time... ;-)
  • "{"The Young Shall Have Wings")": ("The Young Shall Have Wings")
    • Tks -- surprised it didn't draw attention to itself by clobbering the infobox, temperamental things they are...!
  • "During the war it had graduated 1,247 pilots, losing 45 students in fatal accidents.": This question is actually about a current FAC and not this article ... have you heard anyone claim before that "losing" is in the wrong tense in BritEng?
    • Don't know about BritEng per se but it's common wordage when discussing casualties, certainly in the Commonwealth-focussed sources I use.
  • Two images are missing.
    • Missing... what...? :-)
      • The links to the images were broken ... they're fine now. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Sabre Trials Flight. The flight was responsible": I'd prefer the reader get some kind of clue here that this is not the usual meaning of "flight"
  • "in the shape of": I'd prefer "in the form of"
    • Well I'd hope to avoid the "formation ... form" repetition...
  • "frontline", "front-line" (as an adjective): consistency. FWIW, AmEng is "frontline".
    • Tks, thought I had 'em all -- I think we generally say "front line" for the compound noun, in which case "front-line" would be the expected adjectival usage. Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Otherwise:
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick service! Many tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)