Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Kenneth Walker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Walker

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Kenneth Walker/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...

Renomination. Was nominated back in April by myself and another editor as part of an effort to improve the overall quality of Medal of Honor articles. I am the major contributor though. I believe that all issues have now been addressed.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • One dab link (to P-36);
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • One external link reports as dead (A War of Their Own: Bombers over the Southwest Pacific);
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not all images have alt text (although its not a requirement - so if you wan't to add its up to you);
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The citation check tool reports no errors (no action required);
  • I've made some changes so please check you're happy with them and change if you are not; and
  • The first sentence in the Pacific campaign section seems awkward: "Walker was promoted to brigadier general on 17 June 1942 and transferred to the Southwest Pacific,[1] Walker flew to Australia in the company of Brigadier General Ennis Whitehead." Specifically repeating Walker's name;
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Other than that this is another excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • All my suggestions have been resolved so I'm happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Looks very good to me, I made a couple of minor tweaks, so there are just a couple of suggestions from me:
  • there is some inconsistency in date format presentation, e.g. "July 17, 1898" (in Early life section) and "15 December 1917". Either style is fine, but it should be consistent throughout the article;
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Between the wars section, "No did he warm to the Curtiss P-36 Hawk fighter, especially after a near-fatal accident" - I think this is a typo. Should it be "Nor did he warm..."?
    • Corrected typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Papuan Campaign section, "...there were nowhere near enough aircraft in the Southwest Pacific to mount such a massive attack" - "nowhere near enough" sounds a little informal, perhaps just "there were not enough..."?
    • Not enough is not enough. I've reworded this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Papuan Campaign section, "Kenney's suggestion that bombers conduct attacks from low level with bombs with instantaneous fuses received a negative reception from Walker..." perhaps reword "with bombs with" to "using bombs with..."? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Question: It warms my heart to see that Kumioko used User:bahamut0013/ribbon workshop. However, why were the citations moved to the prose? I think they make more sense in the awards section. Also, a suggestion: instead of citing the same ref for each ribbon and badge, it would probably be easier and cleaner to add "Walker's awards and decorations include:" before the table and just cite the ref once there. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There were two reasons for the citations in the prose. The main one was because I felt that they made more sense in context. The other was that I was afraid that the awards section would be deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to a single reference at the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It looks good to me. After reading through it I don't see anything wrong. Excellent job. --Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its nothing to make me withhold be support but in line with bahamut0013's comments I wonder if we need to put the reference in every single cell of the ribbon display or just once at the beginning or end of the section. Either way is ok but I think its kinda cluttered. --Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Changed to a single reference at the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Belated support. Notes added to the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.