Talk:Arthur William Murphy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot) c (Alt text) d (Copyright)

• no dabs found by the tools
• ext links all work;
• alt text is present;
• spot checks reveal no copyright violations.

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• in the Early life and World War I section, "Crediting with bringing down two enemy aircraft while supporting Lawrence's troops, Murphy was awarded". I think this might sound better as: "Credited with bringing down...";
• in the Early life section, perhaps "commission" might be wikilinked to Officer (armed forces);
• in the Between the wars section, "Darwin" and "Port Darwin" - seems inconsistent;
• in the Between the wars section, "he was commissioned a Flying Officer in September that year" - perhaps "commissioned as a Flying Officer"?
• in the Between the wars section, "Promoted Flight Lieutenant, Murphy was posted" - perhaps "Promoted to Flight Lieutenant"?
• in the World War II section, I think the link to Group Captain could possibly be removed as it is already linked above in the previous section;
• in the References, endashes might be added to the year ranges for the Cutlack and Mellor works;

• Heh, that first one looks like a typo; no issues with the others, wilco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• No issues.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• No issues.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• No issues.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• No issues.

• 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:

• No issues.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

• Looks very good, just a couple of suggestions/points to look at. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tks as usual for review, will take care of those points shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• That's all done now, I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, looks good. Well done. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tks, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)