Talk:No. 78 Wing RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 08:53, 22 January 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 all check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only).
• 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):

  • This seems a little awkward, although I don't think it is gramatically incorrect: "No. 78 was a last-minute replacement for a delayed No. 81 Wing...", perhaps consider: "No. 78 was a last-minute replacement for No. 81 Wing which had been delayed..." or something similar (suggestion only).
    • Reworded a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No MOS issues that I could see (excellent attention to detail).

• 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.
  • Minor problem with citation # 11 (No. 78 Wing Headquarters, "Operations Record Book", pp.97). You have used "pp" to denote a page range, but only list a single page. Can this be rectified? (action required)
    • Done, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In the ref list as there is no isbn for "Odgers, George (1968) [1957]. Australia in the War of 1939–1945: Series Three (Air) Volume II – Air War Against Japan 1943–1945. Canberra: Australian War Memorial" you might consider adding an OCLC number instead (suggestion only).
    • Done, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points are covered without going into undue detail.
  • Could a little more context be added here: "No. 78 Wing personnel returned to Australia from the Pacific in December 1945." Why? (following the end of the war I would presume, but I wonder if that is assuming more knowledge than some readers might have). (suggestion only).
    • Done, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Although the wing was withdrawn from Malta in 1954, a few years before the Suez Crisis in late 1956, I wonder what the political/military implications would have been for Australia if it had remained? Indeed I seem to recall this being discussed somewhere in something I read once (not a lot to go on, apologies). Of course its fairly tangentle to the article, and probably even speculative, but did you come accross anything in your research about this formation that would be valuable to include? (suggestion/vague rambling only)
    • 'Fraid I haven't seen such speculation, but I did add something on why it stayed no longer than the planned 2-year stint. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• 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 licenced or in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This is another excellent article. Well written, neat, concise and informative it meets all the GA criteria IMO. I have made a couple of minor suggestions, and there is one small issue with a citation that needs attention, but there is nothing preventing its promotion. Top marks. Anotherclown (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your time and comments, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)