Talk:Richard Travis

Richard Travis has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 12, 2018. (Reviewed version).

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / South Pacific / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	World War I task force

This article was created or added to during the Victoria Cross Reference Migration. It may contain material that was used with permission from victoriacross.net.

A fact from Richard Travis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Richard Travis received a posthumous Victoria Cross for his actions around Rossignol Wood on 24 July 1918?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/July.

Wikipedia

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Richard Travis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427043043/http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-nz/nzef.htm to http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-nz/nzef.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic?

It would appear that the actor is the primary topic. Just saying. Schwede 66 10:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard Travis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues with grammar and some puffery. I made some minor edits here. Please review to see if this makes sense, and ping me back. Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntieruth55: Thanks for looking at this. Apart from a couple, your changes look good. The exceptions were the first paragraph (it wasn't the Army that was deciding what to do) and the third paragraph (some repetitive language, which I rephrased) of the Western Front section. I also supplemented the text a little as well in a couple of places. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: