The citations aren't really very specific, in that a couple of them use quite large page ranges (pp. 1-7) for instance. Wonder if it might be possible to refine the cites?
I understand why you haven't used short and long citations given you only have three refs; however, if you refine the cites more this will increase the number of footnotes so I would suggest adopting the short and long citation style you seem to use in most other articles.
Was a little surprised not to see a ref to one of the official history medical volumes by Butler
[7]. That said I'm not sure if the AVH was covered in there though due to its unique service but if you haven't checked it might pay to do so (I suspect you already have though and there wasn't anything in there, hence you couldn't reference).
Although short most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
Level of coverage mostly seems appropriate to me given the topic and the limited sources, although I just want to confirm that there isn't any material available in the official history.
The image caption in the infobox mentions the AVH being based at St Nazaire sometime in 1914; however, the text doesn't mention this. Do we know when this was? There is a snippet view of a medical journal article available through Google books which mentions St Nazaire also
[8]. Stating "...Owing to the rapid retreat of the Allied armies, it was decided to move the base from Havre to St. Nazaire..." Suspect this would have been before the move to Wimereux but this may need some investigation.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
No issues that I could see.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
No issues here.
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:
Images look ok to me. All seem to be PD and have req'd information.
Captions look fine.
The gallery effect is quite attractive - a good choice.
Passing now. An interesting article about a topic I was unfamiliar with until you wrote about it on Wikipedia. Thank you for expanding mine (and presumably others') knowledge about the service of these remarkable people.
Anotherclown (
talk)
11:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)reply
The citations aren't really very specific, in that a couple of them use quite large page ranges (pp. 1-7) for instance. Wonder if it might be possible to refine the cites?
I understand why you haven't used short and long citations given you only have three refs; however, if you refine the cites more this will increase the number of footnotes so I would suggest adopting the short and long citation style you seem to use in most other articles.
Was a little surprised not to see a ref to one of the official history medical volumes by Butler
[7]. That said I'm not sure if the AVH was covered in there though due to its unique service but if you haven't checked it might pay to do so (I suspect you already have though and there wasn't anything in there, hence you couldn't reference).
Although short most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
Level of coverage mostly seems appropriate to me given the topic and the limited sources, although I just want to confirm that there isn't any material available in the official history.
The image caption in the infobox mentions the AVH being based at St Nazaire sometime in 1914; however, the text doesn't mention this. Do we know when this was? There is a snippet view of a medical journal article available through Google books which mentions St Nazaire also
[8]. Stating "...Owing to the rapid retreat of the Allied armies, it was decided to move the base from Havre to St. Nazaire..." Suspect this would have been before the move to Wimereux but this may need some investigation.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
No issues that I could see.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
No issues here.
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:
Images look ok to me. All seem to be PD and have req'd information.
Captions look fine.
The gallery effect is quite attractive - a good choice.
Passing now. An interesting article about a topic I was unfamiliar with until you wrote about it on Wikipedia. Thank you for expanding mine (and presumably others') knowledge about the service of these remarkable people.
Anotherclown (
talk)
11:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)reply