Talk:No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Review

• According to the toolbox, it's possible there's a better link for "Canopy believed cause of Sabre pilot deaths (info) [nla.gov.au]".
  • Interesting, the automated dab checker didn't send me a reminder this time... ;-)
• "{"The Young Shall Have Wings")": ("The Young Shall Have Wings")
  • Tks -- surprised it didn't draw attention to itself by clobbering the infobox, temperamental things they are...!
• "During the war it had graduated 1,247 pilots, losing 45 students in fatal accidents.": This question is actually about a current FAC and not this article ... have you heard anyone claim before that "losing" is in the wrong tense in BritEng?
  • Don't know about BritEng per se but it's common wordage when discussing casualties, certainly in the Commonwealth-focussed sources I use.
• Two images are missing.
  • Missing... what...? :-)
    • The links to the images were broken ... they're fine now. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Sabre Trials Flight. The flight was responsible": I'd prefer the reader get some kind of clue here that this is not the usual meaning of "flight"
  • Link "flight" to flight (military unit)?
    • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• "in the shape of": I'd prefer "in the form of"
  • Well I'd hope to avoid the "formation ... form" repetition...
• "frontline", "front-line" (as an adjective): consistency. FWIW, AmEng is "frontline".
  • Tks, thought I had 'em all -- I think we generally say "front line" for the compound noun, in which case "front-line" would be the expected adjectival usage. Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
• Otherwise:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Passed - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick service! Many tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)