Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Air Force/archive2

Royal Air Force

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article can hopefully become a good article and then be featured one day. For now, I'd like some suggestions on where the make the necessary improvements to help things along.

Many thanks in advance, Harrison49 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't given this a full review, but there are some things you could get on and sort out before that point.
  • Single-sentence paragraphs are generally a no-no. They're prevalent throughout.
  • Related to the above, the article feels a little... listy. There's very little in the way of flowing prose; some parts of the article may be better presented that way.
  • It's quite under-referenced. Pretty much every assertion could do with a citation. There must be dozens of print sources dedicated to this topic; I'd try to get my hands on some if I were you.

There ya go. Seegoon (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

• First off I commend you for your work on this worthy subject. It's a key foundational article for the British Military and I think you're off to a good start. I'll make comments in conjunction with the GA Criteria.
• See WP:LEAD for requirements regarding the lead. The lead is a summary of the entire article and an article of this length should have a 3 to 4 paragraph lead. You'll want to beef up the lead a little bit.
• Two (early 2011) references in one sentence is duplicative. Once is enough.

History

• I agree with the previous reviewer that there is a paucity of in-line citations. You will need to add references to all assertions in order to get it passed GAC.
• The quote, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" is linked in its entirety. See WP:LINK. Entire sentences are not usually linked. The article is topical though so perhaps linking the preceding "say" instead.
• Is there a more specific article(s) related to RAF involvement in WWII that could be put as a {{main}} or {{see also}}.
• This section seems a bit sparce. You cover major engagements like the Gulf War, Iraq War, Kosovo and Afghanistan in one sentence. You also do not touch on the Falklands War, I'm sure the RAF played a role in that war as well. I think this section could be enhanced and a summary of major all the engagements of the RAF should be included.

Structure

• The Commands section is a little confusing. There's one command yet it says, "Authority is delegated from the Air Force Board to the RAF's commands." Why is "commands" in the quote plural? I don't think it's necessary to put the one command as a bullet, simply combine it with the paragraph. Also this section needs a reference.
• I put a template on one portion just to give you an idea of where a reference is needed. This is just an example of the greater need.
• Again "commands" is plural in the Groups section, I thought there was only one command. Am I missing something here?
• See WP:LIST for thoughts on using lists in articles. To summarize, lists should be used sparcely as prose is preferred. You have three lists (not including the one item list in the Commands section). This should probably be reduced if possible.
• There's no reference in the Groups section either. I'll leave the reference issue with saying every section needs references.
• Can the station section be combined with the Group section? A two-sentence section is a bit short.
• I agree with the previous reviewer that one sentence paragraphs are frowned upon and should be either expanded or combined with other paras.
• I made some minor prose edits to the Wing section. There are a few prose issues but overall the writing is sufficient for GA standards. To move this to FA standards is going to take more work but that is for another day.

Personnel

• Watch use of acronyms like SDSR. You need to spell this out first then put the acronym in parentheses before using the acronym by itself. This is especially evident in the Branches and trades section.
• The reference for the intro para in the Personnel section is for RAF's oldest man, but the other assertions need to be referenced as well.

Aircraft

• This section needs to be reworked so that the one and two sentence paragraphs are condensed into larger paragraphs. It is very choppy and "listy". This reduces the readability and flow of the article.
• Good use of pictures.

Overall

• Your writing is good, I made a few edits along the way but nothing major.
• Lack of references is a main issue right now.
• Condense lists and one/two sentence paragraphs. Make the article flow better.
• Watch duplicative linking. Per WP:LINK a term can be linked once, perhaps twice in a long article. Check for this.
• The history section should be enhanced, keeping in mind that it is a summary of the History of the RAF article. Still I think more could be added to this section.
• Ok this completes my review. If you have specific questions please contact me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. If you found this helpful please consider reviewing an article here or at WP:GAC to reduce the ever-present backlog. Best of luck. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)