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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a crack at this one. Will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a nice, well written, and well referenced article, which I believe meets the GA criteria. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...in response to Australia's participation in the Empire Air Training Scheme..." --> "...as the RAAF expanded its pilot training facilities in response to Australia's participation in the Empire Air Training Scheme"?

Looking at that paragraph, we already use the term "pilot training facility" in the next sentence, and explain how the number of schools grew, so I feel we're covered... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, fair enough. I made a slight tweak. Please check you are happy with it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Archerfield was home to private aviation clubs and schools including the Queensland Aero Club and Airwork Ltd. It was the airfield's position as the hub of civilian flight instruction in the state that led to it becoming the base for the second flying school the RAAF raised during World War II." (perhaps join the two sentences with an "and" after "Ltd.") --> this might help the narrative flow

Done this one, I await your thoughts on the remainder below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is there a link that could be added for Central Area Command, so that it is consistent with Northern Area Command?

It's on my long list so we could red link it, just no guarantees when I'd get to it (then again maybe a red link will push me)... ;-)

Yes, I just didn't mention him 'cos he's not WP-notable (I know the inaugural CO isn't either but I generally mention those anyway). I could put Phillipps' successor in but then I think I'd probably need to mention the others as well...

I was thinking that it would seem to flow from a narrative perspective, but I'll leave it up to you. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is "United States Army Forces in Australia" the same as United States Army Air Forces in Australia? If so, should it be linked?

The linked document specifically says "United States Army Forces in Australia" -- hope it's not a typo in there! Many tks for looking this over, Rupert -- should be back here later today to make necessary edits. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you could get away with piping the link, given that Archerfield is specifically mentioned on that page, but it's not a war stopper. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.C. Curnow's full name was Thomas Charles Curnow according to this: [1]. Not sure if you want to use that, or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose: clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling, copyright): b (MoS: lead, layout, W2W, fiction and list):

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

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:

Sorry it took awhile; I'm finding I don't have much time to edit during the week anymore. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]