Talk:Bobby Gibbes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Looks good so far, some very minor points though:

There is an inconsistency with date formats in the info box - for instance in one place you write 1940–1946, and in another 1942–43;
- Heh, I do make a habit of showing the 'master' date range (i.e. total service) in the first manner, with 'sub-dates' (i.e. units) in the second manner. In fact I do it every article and you're the first person to pick up on it (why didn't you notice it in Nicky Barr)?! I suppose it could be seen as inconsistent the way you put it, but it's consistent actross every article I do... ;-)
  - No dramas, makes sense. (I had a look at Nicky Barr again... damn you're right) Anotherclown (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some overlinking, i.e. Royal Australian Air Force is wikilinked twice - once in the lead and again in the 'Early career' section;
- Again, some editors only link things once, the first time, while I see the lead as sort of stand-alone and re-link things the first time they're mentioned in the main body of the article. Similar syndrome to the first point about date formatting, not how eveyone does it but seems to be accepted...
  - Done it myself at times, especially for longer articles. Anyway I'll leave that one up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Gibbes' himself referred to his wife as "a little dark-haired popsy", might this be clarified though? (otherwise it almost seems a little rude...); Done and
- Heh, being the son of an RAAF pilot I guess I grew up hearing girls being referred to as popsies, but I agree it should probably be made clear this is a quote from the man himself...
  - Happy with that. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the South-west Pacific section seems a little long, could it possibly be split in two?.
- I agree with you actually, but I couldn't see a logical place to split it without one part being pretty small and the other being a fair bit larger. It's that big quote in the middle that makes it hard to divide, I think.
  - Yeah I had a think about it as well and nothing jumped out at me. Anyway again I'll leave it up to you if you want to tweak it in the future. Anotherclown (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks for taking the time to review, as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Overall, another excellent biography on an interesting Australian fighter pilot.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Good work again Ian, happy to promote to GA. Anotherclown (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]