Jump to content

Talk:Gail Halvorsen/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Pretty good and a worthy subject. A few fixes required.

  1. 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:
    See below
  2. 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:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    All images are appropriately licenced
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments

Placing review on hold. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye7, unfortunately Alexis has taken ill. Amgisseman can take a look at this nomination tomorrow though. I understand the prose problems, but I'm not sure what the problem is with the references. I did notice that one of them had a dead link in it; is that the issue? They all use citation templates, do they just need more of the fields filled out? Thanks for taking the time to review this nomination. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is holding up the nomination is not the prose, but the lack of citations for the statements in the first paragraphs of Professional career ("Halvorsen would serve as part of Air Force Systems Command for the next four years"), Legacy (" After his official retirement in 1974, Halvorsen continued to serve the local, national, and international community in a variety of ways"), and Humanitarian work sections ("Halvorsen also performed multiple candy drops throughout the United States"). These are marked with "citation needed" tags. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 On Alexis's behalf, I went in and added citations or new sources to that information in the article. Thanks! Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]