Talk:Swiss Air Force/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the lead it says that there are eight bases, then only lists seven, as far as I can see.
   • The second paragraph of the lead contains information that is not included in the article, which violates the main principle of a summary lead. Also, why is Payerne the most important air base?
   • The Air Defence section says "The high level air defence of the Swiss national airspace is the responsibility of the FLORAKO". I'm not really seeing what this is trying to say.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   • I'm concerned that the image of the Eurocopter Dauphin doesn't have correct licensing. The tag is discussing free software, rather than an image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article, but a few things with prose, MOS and images to be dealt with. These issues should be easy to fix, and the article should be able to be of GA status within a short time. Please let me know if you have any questions! Dana boomer (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the lack of work on the article (no edits have been made since I conducted the above review) I am failing this article's GA nomination. Once the work detailed above has been completed, the article may be renominated for GAN, and should pass with flying colors! Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)