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

Reviewer: Khanate General ( talk · contribs) 09:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Will review in a few days.-- Khanate General ( talk) 09:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• No disambiguation links.
• Copyright tags for the pictures look fine.
• No neutrality issues.
• No missing in-line citations.
• No original research.
• Article is stable.

• Link to World War II. First and only time it appears in the lead.
  • I find more and more that this is considered an example of overlinking, as the subject is so wide ranging and well known. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • That's fine.-- Khanate General ( talk) 06:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• "one of the Dragons was destroyed in an accident at Parafield, causing two deaths—No. 34 Squadron's first fatalities" What was the accident?
  • Added what detail is available. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Define "mercy flight".
  • Tweaked. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• "Eligibility criteria were also codified, potential passengers including Federal ministers" Needs a conjunction or a semicolon between the two independent clauses.
  • Well since it refers to eligible passengers I think the comma is grammatically correct. The alternative would be "Eligibility criteria were also codified; potential passengers included Federal ministers", which I'm happy to use instead if you prefer. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It would be correct if the second clause was made dependent by placing the participial phrase before the noun so that it modifies the main clause, but not in this case because the participial phrase is modifying "potential passengers" and not the "eligibility criteria". It's a minor nitpick, but it's been fixed.-- Khanate General ( talk) 06:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • No prob with that, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Link to Hawker Pacific, first appearance.-- Khanate General ( talk) 06:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Tks for reminder, done. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The article is excellent and no major improvements are needed. Good work.-- Khanate General ( talk) 16:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you very much for taking the time to review. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 20:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • This article passes as a GA. Congratulations.-- Khanate General ( talk) 06:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply