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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article over the next couple of days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments/suggestions: G'day, Ian, nice work. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "dissenting opinion to the Minister": perhaps clarify which minister here?
  • Because the relevant department/minister changed a couple of times during the board's existence, I thought it better to save mentioning him at this point.
    • No worries, your solution works well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "programs such as RAAF College, RAAF Staff College, and the RAAF apprentice" --> "programs such as the RAAF College, RAAF Staff College, and the RAAF apprentice..."?
  • The Air Force tends not to prefix unit names like RAAF College with "the"...
    • No worries. Interestingly, in the Army we have the reverse problem of some elements insisting on adding a definite article when it is not required, and unnecessarily capitalising it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "newly raised RAAF Headquarters", "as the RAAF's first air base" and "and the Air Board approved—an RAAF" ... as it wasn't the RAAF at that time should this be AAF?
  • Good point! I've reworded in a couple of different ways to deal with this (the source actually uses "RAAF Headquarters" in this instance but "Air Force Headquarters" is used interchangeably with it in most of the literature and does the trick here).
• "According to a statement by the Prime Minister": not sure if I missed it, but perhaps add the Prime Minister's name here?
  • Although we could work it out, the source doesn't actually mention his name...
    • I'd lean towards adding it for completeness, but I won't hold you to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "August 1945, SWPA was dissolved": not sure if I missed it, but I suggest spelling SWPA out in full on first mention
  • Mentioned and spelt out earlier now.
• slightly inconsistent: "Air Vice-Marshal" and "Air Vice Marshal"
  • Tks -- fixed.
• "Middle East during 1952–54" --> "Middle East during 1952–1954" per the newish guidance at WP:DATERANGE
  • Yep.
• citation 48, Alexander, do we know the volume, issue and page numbers for this journal article? It is not strictly necessary, and if you don't know it, I can probably look it up for you after the review closes (it would be early next year when I go back to work)
  • I don't think we do know those from the Free Library presentation -- I wasn't particularly worried about page numbers in any case since the version I use is online and can be searched for verification.
    • Too easy. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• in the References, should Australia's Air Chiefs be placed before Going Solo due to the publication date?
  • Not sure of the rule but I felt that the "(ed.)" after Stephens' name for Air Chiefs would put it after his others alphabetically.
    • Ack, not sure if there is a rule or not. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• not a major issue, but there are a few duplicate links: Department of Defence (Australia), Australan Army, Royal Australian Navy, Chief of Air Force (Australia), Department of Air (Australia), Ellis Wackett
  • I sort of treated Organisation and responsibilities and History as standalone when it came to links -- too careful?
• File:JK0744ECWackett1953.jpg: probably could use the new PD-AustraliaGov licence, I think
• same as above for File:AirBoard1928 AWM 128397.jpg
• File:AustralianAirBoard1941.jpeg: suggest adding a link to this page as well: [1] in order to clarify the copyright status
  • Tks, will get on to that tomorrow.
    • Okay I think that's all done now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• there are a couple of commented out areas at the bottom of the article, including a blank membership section, was this intentional?
• a membership list would be a good addition, I think, if it could be reliably sourced
  • Per my message on the talk page, it was my plan to include a list of either the positions, or the positions and the members, if it could be fully sourced (which I think it probably can), hence the hidden placeholder/reminder. I don't feel that sort of detail is necessary for GA status so was planning to add in before submitting for ACR/FAC.
    • No worries, I'd missed that comment on the talk page, sorry. Was there a reason for commenting out the regional warlords comment, though? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, when I first read that I thought McNamara was referring to Air Board members but I now believe he meant the AOCs of the Area Commands, hence it didn't really belong here -- I'll remove it to avoid confusion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks for the review, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, great work as always. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• the article reads well to me and nothing major leaps out at me WRT the MOS
  • there are no dabs, and the ext links all work: [2] (no action required)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• all paragraphs are referenced, and all quotes are attributed (no action required)

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Looks good in terms of coverage, with some room for expansion for ACR or FAC WRT membership, as discussed above

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

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

• Nothing stood out to me in this regard

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• 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:

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail: