Talk:Wilfred Clouston/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 07:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a review shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your work on this article and I hope you are well given what is going on in the world at the moment. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dup links (no action required)
there are no dab links and all ext links work (no action required)
Earwig reports copyright violation very unlikely (no action required): [1]
do we know his mother's name? Any siblings?

Not in my sources, but Wynn mentions his father was married so have mentioned a wife. He had at least one brother, which I mention later in the WWII section but have added this to the early life section too. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, your tweaks are good. I wonder if the service record is available? If so, it might help with the mother's name. If you can get access to this, I think that would be a good addition for A-class or FA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

are there any details about special interests while at school, or sports?

Not in my sources. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for checking. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the first in the RAF to do so --> "the first squadron in the RAF to do so"?

I had deliberately phrased it that way to avoid repeating squadron in the same sentence. I have rephrased it now. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In early May, he and his section --> "In early May, Coulston and his section"

Done. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do we know what his squadron did in July 1940?

Slight expansion and clarification on this. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there was concerns about --> "there were" (probably best to say here who was concerned, though)

Rephrased to mention the British government. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the Singapore section, it doesn't seem clear whether Clouston took part in missions against the Japanese or not

Yes, it is not entirely clear to me either from the sources. I have an impression of an administrator rather than actively flying missions, plus there was only a few week period between the squadron first encountering the enemy and his posting to RAF HQ. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest adding a date here: but by the time of the Japanese surrender

Done. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do we know when this occured: On his return to England?

Not explicitly, no. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that his service record would potentially include embarkation details etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fighters in mid-January: suggest adding the year here

Done. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you mention his marriage in the Second World War section, did it last? Did it produce any children? Was he survived by Anne?

My sources not clear on this - there was at least one son of the marriage, he took over the farm which I have added. Nothing about his wife. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but this was sunk and he had to surrender: were the survivors rescued at sea by the Japanese?

Clarified this. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this sentence appears to be missing something: were in the possession of the Waipukurau Returned and Services Association --> until it closed in X?

Added mention of closure of the RSA. Unfortunately don't know the current whereabouts of his memorabilia. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required)
all information appears to be referenced (no action required)

AustralianRupert, thanks for picking this one up. I have responded to your points above. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: Y

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; and

d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: Y

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.