Talk:No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 15:26, 26 May 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 check out [4] (no action required).
• Alt text: Images all have alt text [5] (no action required).
• 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):

  • Is there a word missing here: "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and Central Flying School (CFS)...", specifically should it be "eight Service Flying Training Schools (SFTS), and the Central Flying School (CFS)..."?
    • I can't speak for all the armed forces, but in the RAAF they seem to avoid the definite article for units even if they're not numbered. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed the Army is notorious for it!
  • "Group Captain Eaton remained in command...", should probably be "Eaton remained in command..." following formal introduction per WP:SURNAME.
    • Agreed, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the prose is of high quality and is mostly MOS compliant.

• 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.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • All major points are covered without going into undue detail.

• 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 in the public domain and seem appropriate for the article.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This article is of a high standard and is very close to meeting the GA criteria, just a couple of very minor points to deal with / or disccuss. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks for taking the time to review, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Too easy, passing now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Cheers mate, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)