Jump to content

Talk:Southern Area Command (RAAF)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Progression

[edit]
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

[edit]
  • Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
  • Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
  • Alt text: images all have alt text [5] (no action req'd).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The article looks to be very well written to me and I couldn't find any issues with the prose.
      • Minor point: "...heavily engaged in anti-submarine patrols, seeking to locate this and any other U-boats in the area...", perhaps add that the search for U-862 was unsuccessful for completeness? (suggestion only - it is implied to the reader but you might spell it out)
    • No MOS issues I could see.
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The article is well referenced to WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR I could see.
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • The article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
    • All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • No issues I could see.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues here.
  • 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 seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
    • Captions look fine.