Talk:St. Clair Streett/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I think we could use a little more detail in the lead, not necessarily two paragraphs but at least a few more lines to cover what is expanded in the main body, say a snippet on his early life and/or WWI, and a bit more on those historic flights.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Be nice to finish the last para of Heavy bombers and the first para of Postwar career with citations.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~In Alaska, what are "model airways" - can it be clarified briefly in the text for the uninitiated?~~

Best spell out state names like Fla. for the non-Americans... ;-)

Nothing specific to say about what he did in the Pacific with Thirteenth Air Force?

~~Nothing to say about his retirement and death?~~

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
~~In the infobox photo, could we pls be explicit about which is Street (I don't know just looking at it)...~~

Alt text would be helpful for the images.
Second photo still needs alt text.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
In general, a nice article but we should include some extra info, as highlighted above, to round it out, as well as the more cosmetic changes noted, so placing on hold for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your comments but I will not be online enough to fix them until about December 28. I'm very interested in making the article as good as it can be, so thanks in advance for a few days of leeway. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, take your time, 'tis Christmas... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still there? I'm about to dig in. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<=I've been expanding the article, as GA-related research showed me that there was much missing, that it needed quite a bit more fleshing out. Along the way, I have addressed some of your concerns. Soon, I will expand the lead to reflect article contents. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, I've been on vacation a few days anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience! I have built up the lead to match the article's new additions, and I think the whole thing is ready for your inspection. Binksternet (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your note about "model airways": I do not have a good grasp of what was meant by that phrase, so I took it out. Historical mentions of "model airways" that I found online were not specific enough to define the term. Binksternet (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice expansion, pretty well there if you could just take care of the latest minor points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your points have been addressed. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate - passed, and well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :)

Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]