Talk:No. 75 Squadron RAAF/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• a (
  Alt text) d (Copyright
  )

• one dab according to the tools, I'm not sure how to fix this one: [3];

• Newm30 (talk · contribs) has fixed that.

• Excellent. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ext links all work;
• you might consider adding alt text, but it is not a GA requirement: [4]

• I think I'll leave that as the status of alt text at the moment seems unsettled (I'll add it if the article goes to an ACR though)

• No worries, that's fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• no copyright issues: [5]

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• in the Offensive operations section, "couldn't deploy..." (maybe remove the contraction - "could not deploy");

• Fixed

• "newly-established" per
  WP:HYPHEN
  "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb"

• Fixed

• "newly-developed" - as above;

• Fixed

• slightly inconsistent capitalisation: "the squadron's" and then "While the Squadron's";

• Fixed (all now lower case)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• No issues.

• It follows the
  neutral point of view
  policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• 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:

• Generally seems fine, but I think "File:Raaf 75sqn.jpg" might need source information if you want to take this article beyond GA.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Looks quite good, just a couple of minor issues. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks a lot for the review. I think that I and Newm30 have addressed your comments Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]