Talk:Dave Shannon/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 19:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this one, hopefully later tonight. There do not appear to be any reasons for quickfail, nor any problems with disambiguation or external links, so I should be good to go! Canadian Paul 19:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments:
- Under "Active service", second paragraph, "in the meantime Gibson ordered Henry Maudsley to make his attack." It should be stated, briefly, who Henry Maudsley, even if it requires a little stating the obvious per WP:OBVIOUS (something like "Gibson ordered another Captain, Henry Maudlsey, to attack". As it stands, it throws off the flow a bit because it reads as if the reader should already be familiar with the individual. Same issue with Les Knight later on.
- I might name the pilots that went to the Eder with Gibson and Shannon before we get the the actual attack -- that should do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I might name the pilots that went to the Eder with Gibson and Shannon before we get the the actual attack -- that should do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Same section, third paragraph, "Though "outwardly nerveless", according to military historian Patrick Bishop, Shannon was not immune to dread feelings." Since this contains a direct quote, there must be a direct citation at the end of the sentence, even if its the same one used later in the paragraph.
- Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although I've done this, I wonder if we might just go back to one citation at the very end if we changed the full stop after "dread feelings" to a semi-colon -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Technically, yes, that would be acceptable, but the closer the the citation to the quote, the better in my opinion. Either is fine by policy as far as I am aware though. Canadian Paul 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Although I've done this, I wonder if we might just go back to one citation at the very end if we changed the full stop after "dread feelings" to a semi-colon -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I also did some copyediting to improve (in my opinion) the flow of some of the paragraphs to make them seem less choppy, so hopefully there wasn't anything too controversial there (I resisted my urge to replace "born at" with "born in", haha). To allow for these issues to be addressed I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 00:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tks for review and ce. However I'm not sure about a couple of edits: "while in the meantime" reads oddly since "while" and "meantime" effectively say the same thing ("so" instead of "while" might work, for causality); I don't think the source directly equates his elation to the accuracy of his bombing, so the full stop seems more appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- For now I've altered these per my comments immediately above. One other thing, you didn't actually call a member of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force a "Women's Auxiliary Air Force", you called them a "Waaf" -- which is why I didn't spell it out, just linked it. It's true however that in that case WAAF should be in title case so have changed it to "Waaf", which makes the phonetic nature of the nickname clearer -- hope that works for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that makes perfect sense.
- For now I've altered these per my comments immediately above. One other thing, you didn't actually call a member of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force a "Women's Auxiliary Air Force", you called them a "Waaf" -- which is why I didn't spell it out, just linked it. It's true however that in that case WAAF should be in title case so have changed it to "Waaf", which makes the phonetic nature of the nickname clearer -- hope that works for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think a few of the copyedit differences are just a cultural/personal thing, certainly nothing of any concern to a GA nomination. Since I now believe that the article meets the Good Article criteria, I will be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Many tks for taking the time to review, Paul. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)