| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Herbert J. Ray article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
| Herbert J. Ray 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Herbert J. Ray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: This is also Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 19:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
GAN Quicksheet 1.23 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments: Here goes...
1. Well written: 
Section acceptable
- a. prose/copyright:
Acceptable - b. MoS compliance: Acceptable
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable Assuming good faith on the printed sources (i.e. almost everything), as I don't have access to the books you're using.
- a. provides references: Acceptable
- b. proper citation use: Acceptable
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage:
- a. covers main aspects:
Needs work
- You include details on Ray's second Legion of Merit but no details on his first. Considering that you gave details for both Silver Stars, and the Legion of Merit is a higher level award, I would think that the first would warrant at least a sentence or two of coverage.
- I have added this. I think the Silver Star is actually the higher award. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- You include details on Ray's second Legion of Merit but no details on his first. Considering that you gave details for both Silver Stars, and the Legion of Merit is a higher level award, I would think that the first would warrant at least a sentence or two of coverage.
- b. focused/on topic: Acceptable
4. Neutral: Acceptable
5. Stable: Acceptable
6. Image use:
- a. license/tagging correct: Needs work
- The source for the image, "US Navy photograph", isn't really good enough. Source is more "where did you get it from", i.e. is it scanned from a book? taken from a website? personal collection? If there is more information about the author, that also should be included.
- Yeah, the photograph is from the my personal collection. I believe that it was one of a series of photographs of senior Naval officers taken in Australia in 1943. You can see he has his Silver Star but not yet the DSM of LoM. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I wouldn't know. I just assumed that LoM was higher because it was listed above Silver Star in the infobox. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, the photograph is from the my personal collection. I believe that it was one of a series of photographs of senior Naval officers taken in Australia in 1943. You can see he has his Silver Star but not yet the DSM of LoM. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- The source for the image, "US Navy photograph", isn't really good enough. Source is more "where did you get it from", i.e. is it scanned from a book? taken from a website? personal collection? If there is more information about the author, that also should be included.
- b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
- a. images that should have alt texts have them: Acceptable
- b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable
Comments after the initial review: Nothing too serious. Should take about 10 minutes to get this into GA shape. I like doing GAN reviews for you MilHist people, you don't make me work very hard. This is also Sven Manguard 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Promoting now. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)