Talk:Lesley J. McNair/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 22:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
First let me apologise for how long this article has been left here. I was hoping someone else would pick it up. I reviewed at in a Peer Review, and it has been greatly improved since then.
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:
- Some minor issues; see below
- 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):
- See below
- 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Per the MOS, I have removed the hard-coded image sizes. I realise that the article may not look nearly as good on your screen; but you have have to think of the folks on mobile devices.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Overall, well within the GA requirements.
- Pass or Fail:
- Comments
- Footnote 111 doesn't point anywhere
- The apps.westpointaog.org and en.ww2awards.com websites are not used; move them to the external links section
- Footnote 106 seems to lead to the wrong page.
- The Tank Destroyer section is a little confused, due to there being the M3 Gun Motor Carriage and a 37 mm Gun M3. In the third paragraph of the section, it is the former that is meant, but it is not linked. (Link the gun in the image caption too.) Its failings led to a reversion to the towed gun until the better M10 and M18 became available.
- How about a few words on the tank controversy? The rejection of the M6 and then the T20 and T23.
Looks good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: - All fixes made. Please let me know what you think.
- Billmckern (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)