Talk:Benin Air Force/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 07:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DeadlyRampage26 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments for nominator

Hi, Simongraham. I have taken interest in this article and thought I would review it. I have found some of what I believe are things that could be improved before I am to move forward in more depth. Firstly, I have taken notice to some excessive micromanagement of different sections. An example of this would be 'Current capabilities', which could possibly either be expanded or merged with 'Aircraft'. Another issue is the 'golf legend' section, which seems to be written in a comical format. Comical may not be the right word but it does seem a bit off. Also it would be nice to see some more citations in the lead, and removal of bold text where not required. Thankyou, if you wouldn't mind pinging me when you respond, that would be appreciated.

@DeadlyRampage26: Thank you for your comments. I have merged and updated the sections that you mentioned. The golf legend is often mentioned in the literature and so is included to comply with criterion 3a but is in summary as required by 3b. In the lead, the bold text is due to these terms being redirects as per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. The lead avoids citations as per MOS:CITELEAD. I have expanded the lead, however, in light of new text in the body. I feel your comments have already improved the article and look forward to your review. simongraham (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response and improvements. I will start the full review. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Review

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.	Reasonably sized prose. Is UTAABH. Spelling and grammar correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with MOS. Did some reading on MOS:WAF and as far as I can see the 'golf legend' section complies.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Bibliography and citation format do comply with guidlines.
	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).	Citations are inline, article does a good job of citing sources for specific pieces of information that may not be covered in a broader source. Spot check conducted on the following sources: Citations 13; and 16, Bibliography 7; and 12. Source spot check proves consistency between source and information on article. TEND TO RECOMMENDATIONS 1 before I pass this section.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Contains no original research, as evident by source titles and small sample spot check.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	After being put through a free online plagiarism checker, checker reports no plagiarism (other than the fact its taken from the article itself obviously).
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is within scope as per WP:OOS. History areas of the page such as previous air forces of Benin under communist governments etc are accepted, especially as with a small country as Benin it wouldn't be appropriate to have a bunch of independent articles with little information.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does stay on topic. Gives a decent overview into the air force of today, as well as the history and what led to the current force. Since the force isn't as well known as major airforces, the article also provides a brief dive into what roles the force serves.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I would say that the article is NPOV after reading guidelines. The author did a good job in remaining NPOV in relation to major world groupings and the language of how they relate to the topic.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring as evident on revision history page.
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.	Images present are of general geometric nature, therefore ineligible for copyright as per Wikimedia Commons. Commons page on the plane image indicates it is free use and has no challenges.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media is relevant to topic. Captions are suitable however refer to recommendation 4 before I pass this section.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall a decent article. I appreciate the work the nominator primarily has put in to get the article up and running and to where it is today. Tend to my recommendations and in my opinion this article will be ready for GA.

DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Progressive recommendations list

1. Adding a citation for the French translation in the lead.
   

   Added at an appropriate time in the body.

2. a)Add citations in the body. Especially second paragraph of 'Benin People's Air Force'
3. Ensure lead topics have citations and mention in body.
   

   All text has appropriate citations.

4. Turn retired inventory section into a clear list. Add citations to it as well.

   Made into a list.

5. Replace french with english in the BPAF section roundel image.

   Amended.

@DeadlyRampage26: Thank you for your review. Please look at my amends and tell me if there is anything else I can do. simongraham (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is all looking good. One last thing I am concerned about is the no citations for the retired inventory. if there is anyway we can fix that then this article will pass. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeadlyRampage26: No problem. I have added references for all the entries. simongraham (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks man. I think I can pass this now, good job. Hopefully I dont get second guessed by another GA reviewer but we'll see what happens. :) DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.