Talk:Nicky Barr/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I will be reviewing this article. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

Looks good so far, a couple of minor points though:

• There seems to be an inconsistant reference style used: for instance sometimes you use 'Author, Date and Page' and in other places you use 'Author, Title and Page', IMO it would probably be best to pick one and use it throughout; Done
  • Yep, you're right, comes from mixing the style already in the article (author/date) with my usual style (author/title) for new refs -- should be consistent now.
• You have used the London gazzette as a reference on multiple occasions and Barr's recommendation for the DFC, as such you could turn these into named references per WP:REFNAME;
• Use of figures is not always consistent with WP:MOS, specifically that figures under ten should be written in full (i.e nine), while those over ten should be written using numerics (i.e. 12). For instance in places you refer to Barr's total kills as twelve, when it should probably be written as 12; Done
  • I think some discretion is permitted under MOS for single-worded numbers, so I've made those consistently words now.
• The first para in the 'Combat service' section seems long, could it possibly be split in two?; Done
  • Done.
• 55 kilograms could have a {{convert}} template added to it; and Done
  • Done.
• D-Day + 2 seems clumsy, maybe reword to something like 'two days after D-Day'?
  • I think that, as David says, it's a fairly common construction, which is why I used it.
    • No problem, only a suggestion of course. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

More to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian can fend for himself, but on your first point, date is used as the standard differentiator when the same author has written more than one work used as a ref, like Dornan in this article, it's not needed when there's no ambiguity. On the Gazette mostly these refer to specific combinations of issue and page, on the DFC and Bar, there actually seems to have been an error, they should refer to separate issues, and in fact I can't even see Barr mentioned on p651! I'll look at this. D-Day + 2 is a fairly standard formulation (or even just D+2)David Underdown (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ack re the Gazette stuff and I have now struck that issue. I think you may be missing the point on the matter of reference inconsistency though. Two different styles are clearly evident (to me at least). For instance one example is: 'Herington, Air War Against Germany and Italy, pp. 223–224' (i.e. Author, title and page) and another example is: 'Dornan 2002, pp. 231–239' (i.e. Author, date and page). IMO this does need to be rectified. I don't mind which style is chosen. Of course I have my own preference (in the articles I write), but all I'm looking for here is consistency. Anotherclown (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you mean now, the Air War is possibly a little like the Gazette one, opportunity is taken to provide a slightly more specific link, but probably best if Ian look at this himself. David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

One more point:

• Do we know why he was grounded and later confined to hospital? Anotherclown (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • While not stated explicitly in the refs, I think we can safely put it down to injuries sustained when he bailed out and was taken prisoner.
  • Thanks for reviewing. BTW, it's perfectly acceptable under the MOS to have References in a standard-sized font; I certainly don't think there's any reason to make them miniscule when there's not that many of them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No worries, makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. 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:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Happy to promote to GA. Top work. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Many tks for taking the time to review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)