Talk:The Bomber Mafia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Homesteading this. Review to follow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I haven't read the book. Sounds like rubbish.

• • Yes. I thought this review was particularly good. They say Gladwell has the ability to influence thousands with the book being so mainstream, but for a book so popular it should have been fact checked better, and the main premise of the book was inaccurate. Alas. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Ranks are wrong. "General" Haywood S. Hansell, should be "Major General" in the first appearance lead and the body.
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Same for Major General Curtis LeMay
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• "General" Arthur Harris should be Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris
  • Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• "This could lead to a minimum of casualties" are we talking about casualties in the air or on the ground?
  • This is more my paraphrasing of the text. The exact text is: "Because the Norden represented a dream — one of the most powerful dreams in the history of warfare: if we could drop bombs into pickle barrels from thirty thousand feet, we wouldn't need armies anymore. We wouldn't need to leave young men dead on battle-fields or lay waste to entire cities. We could reinvent war. Make it precise and quick and almost bloodless. Almost." I've added "war-time" before "causalities" for added context. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Does the book cover Hansell's less than stellar experience in Europe?
  • It does go over his failed bombing of a German plant that made ball bearings. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I've added a bit about that to the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I've been reverted, and I don't know enough about the subject to give a real opinion. Here is the diff. What is your opinion? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Does it mention other members of the bomber mafia like Donald Wilson and Kenneth Walker?
  • Walker no, Wilson only in passing. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Or anything between 1945 and 1991?
  • I agree something more could be added. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• "Bombing of Tokyo on 10 March 1945" Link Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945), and you've switch date formats. Pick one.
  • Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Switched dates. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• You mention his treatment of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the reviews but not the summary.
  • Removed from reviews. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• "After the United States invasion of Kuwait, David L. Goldfein states that by then bombs could hit, with precision, a specific wing of a building." General David L. Goldfein. Some context needed here: is Goldfein being quoted? (Suggest splitting last two sentences off into their own paragraph.)
  • Split. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing

• • I'll get to this shortly, thank you for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)