Talk:No. 33 Squadron RAAF/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 13:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this ★★Retro Lord ★★ 13:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

Why does the articles infobox only mention the A330? Has the squadron ever flown other aircraft in the past? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I generally prefer to leave discussion of previous aircraft in the text as mentioning types in the infobox may give the impression it's an exhaustive list, and that's rarely possible to confirm as different sources can give contradictory information, not simply on exactly when the unit operated the types, but the types themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the commander of the squadron? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know -- the RAAF website rarely provides this information regarding its units. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How many people are currently assigned to this squadron? ★★Retro Lord ★★ 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 14:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what more I can do in this review, the article seems perfectly OK. I expect i'll pass it over the coming days provided nothing else jumps out at me. Thanks, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 19:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"fell through" Seems a bit colloquial? Could you rewrite? Agree -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] " personages" That seems a bit tooooo formal. Could you rewrite? Agree -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Omega Air" Can we bluelink this? Linked as Omega Air Services in second-last paragraph. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.