Talk:Alec Sutherland/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 10:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking: masters swimming is linked twice in the body prose - keep only the first instance of the link
Done

Checklinks reports the mcofs.org.uk ref link dead; Since this ref (number 11) is currently paired with (10) and the reference itself contains little information which might help with verification of the claim, I'd suggest it be removed altogether.
Done

Reference (10) "Scottish mountain climbers" at memetrick.com does not seem to me to be compliant with WP:RS. What makes it a reliable source?
Done Removed, as it is covered by #1 reference (Allan Laing)

Furthermore to the above, besides being not-RS (at least I think so), the reference 10 seems redundant. Namely, both 10 and 11 support claim "He was a hillwalker and mountaineer", which is already reliably referenced by the cite number 1 (The Herald). For these reasons, I'd suggest you to remove this reference as well.
Done

Reference Laing, Allan. "Alexander Ross-Sutherland" should include the date of publication (3 May 2014).
Done

Reference 4 appears incorrectly formatted and presently says only "PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines". www.pressreader.com." while linking to a particular article - please fix this
Done

In The squadron rebuilt a Hawker Audax biplane, which was used for training, what happened to the biplane that it needed rebuilding? What is significance of the rebuilding? Was the plane somehow damaged or was it modified and why? Or was it just salvaged/repaired due to shortage of training planes?
Done Copy edited accordingly. It was disassembled and then reassembled inside their facilities.

In This led to advanced training in Canada under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan scheme at RCAF Station Port Albert, it seems to me that his wireless operator qualification caused him to go/be deployed to Canada for training. Is there a causal link or is it just a sequence of events?
Done = Just a sequence of events. The Allison Shaw obituary (ref #4) source says, After being selected for aircrew training, he went to No 17 Initial Training Wing at Scarborough and then on to No 1 Radio School. where he qualified as a wireless operator in November 1943. He then went to Canada under the Commonwealth Air Training scheme, where he was based latterly at the RAF Air Navigation School in Port Albert, Ontario, before returning to the UK to fly as a wireless operator in Avro Ansons with Coastal Command, based at RAF Nutts Corner in Northern Ireland.

There is abbreviation "Operational Training Unit (OTU)" which is not used anywhere else in the prose. I'd suggest you to remove the abbreviation as redundant.
Done

It seems unclear to me what did he perform in In May 1945, after VE Day, Sutherland performed in London for the RAF at a swimming show to music. Could you please clarify?
Done It was a celebratory Aquacade. Copy edited accordingly.

Ditto after 2009 in In 2009 Sutherland was..., after 2002 in In 2002 he carried the Commonwealth Games baton, and after 2007 in In 2007 he was awarded...
Done

Sentence He coached a team at the Inverness Swimming Club, participated in competitive water polo[5][3] and competed in swimming competitions into his late 80s,[2][7] garnering several gold medals in the "veteran sections" meets,[8] including two Masters swimming gold medals in 2007. seems awfully long, I'd recommend you to break it up to improve readability.
Done

Should the word senior in "senior" category be in quotes? (see WP:SCAREQUOTES)
Done

Ditto for necessary in ...Sutherland said it was “necessary” - this reads as irony/sarcasm
Done

Sentence He became an expert on the Cuillins, Cairngorms, and Glen Affric's hills[2] and was custodian of the bothy at Shenavall, below the An Teallach massif. He was a county librarian and taught children competitive swimming skills.[2] is supported by reference 2 (Patterson) on two spots. There is no need to repeat the reference within the same sentece, especially since there is no other reference supporting the sentence. I'd suggest you to remove the first instance and retain the final instance of the reference in the sentence.
Done

I'd strongly recommend replacing swastika flag linked to swastika and to flag with flag of Nazi Germany as more descriptive and linked to the actual topic per WP:EGG
Done

...he received from a former prisoner of war who he helped when he was released reads confusing (at least to me). I'd suggest something along the lines of "...received from a former prisoner of war Sutherland helped after release"
Done

Bomber Command in He was then assigned to Avro Lancaster heavy bombers in Bomber Command should be linked to RAF Bomber Command instead of generic Bomber Command article.
Done

According to MOS:ALSO, the See Also section should include only links relevant to understanding of the topic not listed in the body prose. RAF Bomber Command should be in the prose and not in this section. RAF Bomber Command aircrew of World War II - I'm not sure if it belongs there or not, so it is up to you to decide if it is sufficiently relevant to be moved to the prose, left in See Also or left out. For the List of RAF Regiment units I see no direct or indirect benefit to understanding of the article topic and I'd suggest you to leave this link out. On the other hand MOS:ALSO leaves this to common sense judgment of the author, so please look at this item as a suggestion only.
Done

I think you should expand the MBE (not following the name, but later in the lead) to Order of the British Empire (MBE) since not all readers are familiar with this abbreviation.
Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No POV seems apparent, overall article seems reasonably broad and focused - no action required
Done

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Overall nice work - little remains to be done to get this to GA. Placing on hold.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Working Thanks for review. Will start working on the issues and mark each issue with Done check mark when done.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response - I'll re-read the article and get back to you here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]