Talk:No. 79 Squadron RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2011 (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 dabs - [3]
• Linkrot: Ext links all work - [4] (no action required)
• Alt text: Images lack alt text (but its not a GA requirement anyway so its up to you if you want to add it) - [5] (no action required)

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

  • "Squadron Leader M.S. Bott, was killed by an accident on 16 April." - maybe reword "was killed in an accident"; and
    • Done
  • "Communist neighbors, which was thought to be likely to occur." - maybe reword to "Communist neighbors, which was thought likely to occur."
    • Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • You wrote: "During the unit's transit to Goodenough Island, No. 79 Squadron Spitfires were scrambled from an Allied airfield at Milne Bay on 19 June." Do we know what happened during this action?
    • Yes, none of the interceptions were successful - I'd added extra detail from No. 79 Squadron's operations record book
  • "On 9 November, two Spitfires unsuccessfully attempted to intercept three Japanese aircraft which had raided Hyane Harbour." Again do we know the result of the action (if their was one)?
    • They didn't make contact with the Japanese aircraft (which I what I meant by "unsuccessfully attempted" - should this wording be changed?). The unit record book doesn't provide any extra details here. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Indeed I see that now. No need to change, thats fine IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• 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':

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • Only a couple of very minor issues above, otherwise this meets the GA criteria IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to review the article and for your comments - I've responded above Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Cheers those changes look good. Happy to pass for GA now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)