Talk:No. 41 Squadron RAF

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Kges1901 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 41 Squadron RAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Some comments:
    • Many references are missing and need to be added for the large number of paragraphs marked with citation needed tags.
    • For an article this long, the lead should be expanded to a full paragraph so that it summarizes the article. The lead was removed as copyvio. A lead should be written that isn't copied off the 41 Squadron brief history article.
    • Ref to Gillespie doesn't cover the statement about the Canadian aces or the service of the other aces with the squadron, please provide refs supporting their service with the squadron.
    • The notable pilots section should probably be condensed, this article doesn't need to provide biographies of men such as Collishaw who already have wikipedia articles.
    • Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, the Roll of Honour section should be removed.
    • The lists of decorations awarded, POWs, escapers/evaders and Guinea Pig Club members should be removed. External links can be added to copies of the lists (if they are present in other places on the web).
    • 41 Squadron Retro external link has connection issue, should be removed if dead.
    • Notes with comments such as Refs #1, #21, #59, etc. should be formatted like those here and should be placed in a separate reflist and section.
    • There are many duplinks in this article that should be removed, see MOS:DUPLINK for more info on this.
    • "The pilots returned from the third without the Commanding Officer" - Is this CO mentioned Geoffrey Hyde?
    • Short citations to books written by Steve Brew should have the year included, as there are two books by that author in the bibliography.

Kges1901 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Assessment

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: