Talk:William Thompson (Medal of Honor, 1950)/GA1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by MathewTownsend in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- review
- What about using this source, the Medal of Honor News: Two Black Medal of Honor recipients honored with renovated park in the South Bronx
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- Under "Military career" the subject is always referred to as Thompson, never he or with some less repetitive wording. Too much repetition of "Thompson".
- I've cut down the instances of this. —Ed!(talk) 15:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Under "Military career" the subject is always referred to as Thompson, never he or with some less repetitive wording. Too much repetition of "Thompson".
- b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Too many "known to have" and "known to be" etc. Passive voice is to be avoided.
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- Removed this. —Ed!(talk) 15:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- c. no original research:
- assume good faith as the sources aren't accessible to me
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- fair representation without bias:
- fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- no edit wars, etc:
- no edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- Also, the citation Appleman 1998, p. 194 is not in the Sources, so it throws a "Harv error: link to #CITEREFAppleman1998" error.
- (I fixed Appleman; took it off Battle of Sangju (1950). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC))
Will place on hold while issues are addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 15:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I made a few more edits to fix some remaining problems.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reevaluation after fixes