Talk:Cross of Valour (Canada)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 06:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• As its Cross of Valour should it not be Croix de la Vaillance with a capital V
• the highest honour available for Canadian civilians - as its awarded to non Canadians this should be reworded - the highest honour awarded by Canada to civilians or similar
• a miniature cross may be worn on the ribbon bar in undress - I know what you mean but oit sounds as if they are naked
• In the Eligibility section Anyone may nominate or be nominated for receipt of the Cross of Valour a short line on how you nominate someone would be useful, but not including it will not fail GA
• Can the recipients be changed into prose. A the moment its a short list, but in ten years and another 50/100 awards it would unmanageable. You could include how many were posthumous, and why they were awarded/circumstances and link to the [Category:Recipients of the Cross of Valour (Canada)] which makes the list redundant.

• No disambig links need fixing
• All external links checked and in order
• A good job just some minor points. If you disagree with anything, just let me know.

On hold

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you need more time ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Failed GA no progress Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)