Talk:Alexander Godley/GA1
Appearance
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Zawed, I'll get to this today. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Check the 2nd and 3rd links in the toolbox (upper right on this page); one of the urls isn't working, and one isn't the best url to use. Home Guard is a disambig link. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- "brevet": link it
- "a posting in remote New Zealand may not enhance his reputation": wrong tense
- "the somewhat amateur military establishment": "amateurish" might be appropriate, but only if the consensus is actually that harsh. What does McGibbon say?
- "he personally intervened to counter a potential Turkish counterattack": in what way?
- "as well as the newly formed New Zealand Division": The sentence needs an "and" somewhere; you can substitute it for "as well as" if you like.
- "frontline": front line (used as a noun)
- "As well as an award of the French Croix de Guerre, he was appointed in 1918 ...": The introductory phrase dangles. "After receiving the French Croix de Guerre" would work (if it was in fact after)
- "followed by an award of the Belgian Croix de guerre ...": This sentence needs an "and" somewhere.
- "considered for as a possibility": ?
- "Louise ... died in England. ... She lived in New Zealand": She had lived in New Zealand (and keep using past perfect until the sentence about the funeral).
- "Godley offered his services to the New Zealand government but this was not taken up": ... government, but got no response.
- The references look good. The last two should be switched to be in alpha order.
- "Major aspects" seem to be covered, but I'm not a good judge of that; I understand this is headed to A-class, which is a better place to make this call.
- Otherwise:
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: Yes
- C. No original research: Yes
- A. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects: Yes
- B. Focused: Yes
- A. Major aspects: Yes
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias: Yes
- Fair representation without bias: Yes
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc: Yes
- No edit wars, etc: Yes
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Yes. Images are good.
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Yes
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Yes. Images are good.
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Passed.
- Pass or Fail: Passed.
- Dank, thanks for taking the time to review this article, your feedback is appreciated - I think I have to watch that "dangling". I think I have addressed all your comments as noted above. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Your edits check out, and I made one tweak. I'm going to look at a few other articles before signing off on "major aspects". - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Passed GA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)