Talk:Robert Nimmo/GA1
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Hawkeye7 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Picking this one up. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Lead
- "4th Australian Base Area" should be "4th Base Sub Area"
- Could we have his service number in the infobox? It was QX23797
- Remove the hard-coded image size from the infobox
World War I
- I don't see the need to put "A" Squadron in quotation marks.
- typo: "the trenches douth"
- "spurline" should be "spur". Could be linked to ridge?
Interwar period
World War II
- "4th Base Sub-Area" should be "4th Base Sub Area"
United Nations service and death
- Link gun salute
Duplicate links
- Queensland, colonel, second-in-command
References
- Londrey (2021) is giving me a CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link) Delete the ref from the template, as it is already the default.
All looks very good. Just some minor points. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- All done, thanks Hawkeye. BTW, warm congrats on your election as lead coord! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Great article.
- Pass or Fail:
The discussion above 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.