Talk:Air raids on Japan/GA1

GA Review

First impressions are good and its a very big article, well done.Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk • contribs • count) 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

According to the checker an ISBN is wrong haven't found which one yet

In the lead its USAAF but the first mention in the article under United States plans has United States Army Air Corps. Then USAAF in the next paragraph.

• • I've added a reference to the change of name in June 1941

The first American Volunteer Group is followed by the second Air Volunteer Group, is this correct or should if be second American Volunteer Group?

• • Both should be 'American Volunteer Group' - fixed

CN tag for Dolittle

• • That was referenced to Chun (2006) Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I've just added a specific reference for this. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything on the Japanese response to the F13 missions in the Initial attacks from the Mariana Islands section.

• • Added

Do we know why Hansell was relieved of command

• • Due to Arnold's frustration with the Command's poor results and his headquarters wanting a focus on area attcks - added.

Some of the books have the publishing locations missing for consistency they should all be the same; Harris Samuel Russ, LeMay Curtis, and Mann Robert

• • Fixed

I have changed some wording in the article you should check you are happy with the changes.

• • Looks good. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

While not part of the review, I have noticed that some reviewers further up the assessment scale are asking for 10 number ISBNs to be changed to 13 number . There is an on line tool to do this if you need it here. [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jim - I really appreciate you taking the time to review this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)