Talk:No. 79 Wing RAAF

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:No. 79 Wing RAAF/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Comments

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)
    • Ah, now I get you -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
• "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.
  • All above done, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
  • See what I can find -- no promises... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Checked Odgers and Johnston and it didn't seem that obvious either way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• "attacked enemy positions in Timor" - see above
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
    • The RAAF Museum says this. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • Tks mate, will look at putting that in somewhere then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Did I say it was deployed to NB? I mean I think it was at the time, according to Odgers, and was going to put that in. He did say the Mitchells were at the very limit of their range, and couldn't even wait for the Liberators before attacking.
    • I think I miss-read this; my mistake. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well I took the bull between the horns and expanded a bit on this whole thing -- see what you think... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify comment above, Odgers said that at this time the wing was preparing to move to New Britain, but evidently it hadn't completed that at the time of the Isuzi attack. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks for your comments, as usual, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment against GA criteria

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)

   Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)