Talk:Joint Agency Coordination Centre/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 08:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

On it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

This is quite close to GA, the following things need to be taken care of:

• It feels like the "History" section should have a different header, since it features more than the mere history of the JACC.
• Also, that section should probably be updated with the new developments?
• The "Relatives of passengers" section should be merged into "Activities".
• Reference #6 is a dead link.

That's about it. Good work so far! I am placing the review on hold for seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the deadlink and added an archived version of it too. I could not think of a better title for the History section, so I divided the section into two subsections (Establishment and Search). Since the start of the underwater search in October 2014, there is not anything relevant to this article to add. I do not understand what you mean by merge the "Relatives of passengers" section into "Activities". It is a subsection of activities and the contents do not fit into either the "Search coordination" or "Media" sections, so in my opinion the section is fine. AHeneen (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, both of those were my mistakes. I had the article printed out, and there it is not so clearly visible which level headline it is so I thought that "Relatives of passengers" was seperate from "Activities". As for new developments I am guessing the JACC is not involved in the recent debris finds, since it is not in Australian waters? Assuming so, I am passing this article for GA. Congratulations! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The JACC is not involved with the recent finds. Thanks for the review. AHeneen (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)