Talk:No. 75 Wing RAAF
Appearance
![]() | No. 75 Wing RAAF has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 14, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No. 75 Wing RAAF article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from No. 75 Wing RAAF appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 75 Wing RAAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I will review this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, having reviewed this, it looks in good shape. Three things:
- The infobox states its role as Fighter; attack. From the lead/body of the article, I wouldn't have thought that this was the primary role of the wing.
- Well I used "fighter" as synonymous with "air defence" but I could use the latter and change "attack" (which I used to cover the role of the Beauforts and Vengeances) to "anti-shipping" to better reflect what's said in the body. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- The lead refers to the wing forming at Townsville but the history section states it was formed at Garbutt (the base at Townsville); I think it would be worthwhile expanding the history section to mention Townsville to avoid confusion.
- Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Could we have an OOB as a separate section, like for the North-Eastern Area Command article?
- I'm always a bit dubious about creating OOB sections that aren't essentially taken verbatim from one source stating "this was the formation's OOB at this time", and we don't have that in the 75WG sources, we just have several sources stating that such-and-such a unit was under 75WG, or 75WG controlled the units at this base and I then report the units at that base. Not an exact science I'm afraid...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hope that is useful, I'll check back in a few days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, bit busy lately -- tks for review and will address as soon as I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Your changes/feedback look good Ian, passing as GA now. Zawed (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- GA-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles