Talk:Rupert Downes/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Intitial comments
[edit]This is a very interesting and well written article in my opinion. I have the following comments and suggestions for improvement as part of my review for GA:
in the last paragraph of the lead "the army's" - I think this should be capitalised as "the Army's" for consistency (as per second paragraph) and because in this case it is a proper noun;
Done
in the lead, "First AIF" - I think that the abbreviation should be introduced formally, e.g. "First Australian Imperial Force (First AIF)...";- Done
in the First World War section, "...rank of lieutenant colonel. At this time, he was the youngest lieutenant colonel in the AIF..." might be reworded to remove the double mention of "lieutenant colonel";- Done
I suggest wikilinking "potable" in the First World War section as many readers won't necessarily understand that this means water that is fit for human consumption (i.e drinking);- Done I hadn't even realised that there was an article.
I suggest wikilinking "mentioned in despatches" in the First World War section;- Done
in the Interwar years, I think "Tonsillectomy" shouldn't be capitalised for consistency (e.g. "meningitis");- Done
not sure about the capitalisation here: "Doris became an officer of the order", but please check if you can;- Done. Capitalised "Officer" for consistency.
in the Interwar years, "...which was expended..." (I think this is a typo - expanded?);- Done
in the Interwar years, "...which was expended into one of the chapters of the Official History, which was published in 1930" (perhaps reword - repeated use of "which")- Done
in the Interwar years, I think the abbreviation "RAAF" should be formally introduced;- Done
at the start of the Second World War section, I think a sentence might need to be inserted to clarify the position Downes initially held as it is a little unclear. It begins by talking about him pressing for the construction of the hospitals and then being blamed for a shortage of medical supplies. Perhaps the insertion of a sentence such as: "Having returned to Australia, Downes, in his capacity as..."- Done
in the Second World War section, "...When Blamey reorganised the army on..." (I think "army" should be capitalised as "Army");- Done
"Downes held this post until 22 August 1944." What post did he hold after this?- Done
in the second last paragraph of the Second World War section "Cairns" is linked twice. I suggest removing the second one;- Done
in the Rupert Downes Memorial Lectures section, would it be possible to find a way to put the source into an inline citation for consistency of style?- Not sure how...
- That's fine, I'm not sure either, but I thought I'd ask...;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure how...
in the Rupert Downes Memorial Lectures section, the capitalisation of the titles is inconsistent. I think they should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;- Done
in the Notes section, Note 1 (ADBO) could have publisher and accessdate information added to it;- Done Replaced with the new ADB template
- Excellent, I think I will snake that and use it on some of my articles, too. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
in the Notes section, Note 22 (P&O), Note 38 (Honours and Awards), Note 60 (WW2 Nom roll), and Note 65 (Rupert Downes Memorial Lecture and Medal) could have publisher information added to it;- Done
in the References section, I think that the title of the Downes and Anderson work should be capitalised as Medical Ethics per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles;- Done
in the References section, the title of the Howie-Willis work should have an endash for the year range per WP:DASH.- Done
- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- All done but one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- No dramas. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- All done but one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Progression
[edit]- Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
- Version of the article when review was closed: [2]
Technical review
[edit]- a (Disambiguations):
b Linkrot c Alt text
-
- Looking at this closer, I don't think it can be fixed, so I have struck it. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- no broken external links;
- alt text present.
Criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- No issues.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- No issues.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- No issues.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- No issues.
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- No issues.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
- a (tagged and captioned):
- No issues.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
- Excellent work as usual, Hawkeye. Happy to pass for GA. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)