Talk:No. 3 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be taking this article for review. I should have my initial comments up within a day. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Link Southern Area Command?

   • I was going to leave that for a dedicated article at some later stage but happy to link it for now to Air Force Training Group RAAF, of which it was the precursor.

   • I would expect the first link to Essendon (formed at Essendon, Victoria,) to be to the city, and the airport link to be given at " Essendon aerodrome".

   • Good point, will do.

   • "Flying doctor Clyde Fenton," - this sentence seems like a non-sequitur. Why pick out this instructor over any others, one man out of 50? If his article is correct, he was the first flying doctor in the Northwest Territory - perhaps say something like "Clyde Fenton, previously the first flying doctor of the Northwest Territory," or something, to give a better feeling of notability, if this is why he is included.

   • Heh, yes, bit lazy there -- will think of something to elaborate.

   • "King was posted to command No. 5 EFTS" Do we know who took over from him?

   • We do, I just restricted it to King as the notable one (in WP as well as real-world terms).

   • Article says that 200 men were graduated by late 1940. Do we know how many went through the program the entire time it was in operation?

   • 'Fraid not.

   • Why was it combined with another school in 1942?

   • This sort of rationalisation wasn't uncommon (see No. 2 Service Flying Training School RAAF for example) but there's no specific reason mentioned re. No. 3 EFTS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Short and sweet. A few comments above on areas where I would like to see a bit of expansion/context. Dana boomer (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

   Many tks for taking a look, Dana. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   OK, everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA. It would still be nice to have some further detail in a couple of spots, but I completely understand if sources are thin on the ground :) Thanks for the quick work, Dana boomer (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you, Dana. I think I've trawled all available sources, so unless someone writes a book on the EFTSs, the only other thing will be when/if the National Archives gets round to digitising the unit's operations record book...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)