Talk:No. 79 Wing RAAF/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ian Rose in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

To my slight surprise, I've never edited this article, so I think that I can review it neutrally. My comments on it are:

  • "Its combat units included" - this makes it sound like there might have been more than just the four squadrons.
    • The word 'included' is the problem here: it's often used as a dodge to signal imprecision (I use it all the time at work!), but here you know exactly which combat units were in the wing. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "the Beaufighters attacked enemy shipping" - replace 'enemy' with 'Japanese'
  • "On 19 April, Eaton organised a large raid against Su, Dutch Timor," - did he plan the raid on this day, or was it conducted on this day? This sentence should also be split into two sentences
  • "On the day of the Allied landings, 22 April, the Mitchells and Beaufighters made a daylight raid on Dili, Portuguese Timor. The ground assault met little opposition, credited in part to the air bombardment in the days leading up to it." - this is a bit confusing, as it implies that Dili was the target of the ground assault. I'd suggest tweaking this.
  • If possible, you might also want to mention whether the raids on Timor were conducted as a diversionary operation or whether they aimed to destroy Japanese forces on the island that could have interfered with the Allied landings (or both)
  • "attacked enemy positions in Timor" - see above
  • You might want to note that No. 2 and No. 18 Squadrons were the only RAAF units which operated Mitchells.
    • Sounds plausible, will check for a source explicitly mentioning that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • The RAAF Museum says this. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • Yep, first thing I checked too -- great minds (I say that a lot to you I know -- scary!). I realise it only mentioned 2 and 18 but I'd prefer it was explicit about them being the only ones, I've been burnt by assumptions before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • Page 154 of Wilson, Stewart (1994). Military Aircraft of Australia. Weston Creek: Aerospace Publications. ISBN 1875671080. states it explicitly. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Was the wing actually deployed to New Britain? The attack on the Isuzu took place well within the NEI, well out of range of this island.

Assessment against GA criteria

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
    Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply