GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- missing one cite
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- missing one cite
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
JPAnalog (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC) A minor quibble - The statement that after flying 15,000 bomber escort missions, the 332nd "eventually...acquired the right to fly combat missions," makes no sense. According to the Tuskegee Airmen page, prior to their bomber-escort work, the group had already engaged in fighter interception, ground attack and bombing missions and had already earned two Distinguished Unit Citations. As for bomber-escort work, if a near-guarantee of going up against the Luftwaffe's best pilots in aircraft like the Ta 152 and Me 262 was not combat, then I wonder what was.