Talk:No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be taking this article for review. I should have my initial comments up within a day. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Link Southern Area Command?

I was going to leave that for a dedicated article at some later stage but happy to link it for now to Air Force Training Group RAAF, of which it was the precursor.

I would expect the first link to Essendon (formed at Essendon, Victoria,) to be to the city, and the airport link to be given at " Essendon aerodrome".

Good point, will do.

"Flying doctor Clyde Fenton," - this sentence seems like a non-sequitur. Why pick out this instructor over any others, one man out of 50? If his article is correct, he was the first flying doctor in the Northwest Territory - perhaps say something like "Clyde Fenton, previously the first flying doctor of the Northwest Territory," or something, to give a better feeling of notability, if this is why he is included.

Heh, yes, bit lazy there -- will think of something to elaborate.

"King was posted to command No. 5 EFTS" Do we know who took over from him?

We do, I just restricted it to King as the notable one (in WP as well as real-world terms).

Article says that 200 men were graduated by late 1940. Do we know how many went through the program the entire time it was in operation?

'Fraid not.

Why was it combined with another school in 1942?

This sort of rationalisation wasn't uncommon (see No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF for example) but there's no specific reason mentioned re. No. 3 EFTS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Short and sweet. A few comments above on areas where I would like to see a bit of expansion/context. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks for taking a look, Dana. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. It would still be nice to have some further detail in a couple of spots, but I completely understand if sources are thin on the ground :) Thanks for the quick work, Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dana. I think I've trawled all available sources, so unless someone writes a book on the EFTSs, the only other thing will be when/if the National Archives gets round to digitising the unit's operations record book...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]