Talk:Robert Nimmo/GA1
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.