Talk:Armstrong Sperry

Good article review
My initial impression is that this is an excellent article; however, that is an impression based on reading through it once. My only comment at this point is that I wish the references were hyperlinked to online sources, if possible. However, that isn't necessary to qualify for GA.

My comments, at this point, are not to be considered as a "passing grade" for GA. Other reviewers, please place your comments below. -Amatulic (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:Yllosubmarine
This article does not fulfill some of the GA criteria including that it be well written and comprehensive.

The main issue is that the article is not comprehensive enough. For example, there is no information about the author's notability other than brief mentions of his awards. For writers, even writers of children's literature, it is important to note their critical reception, style and overall artistry. What is Sperry remembered for? What is his lasting legacy? Take a look at some of the current writer Good Articles in order to get some ideas for this. The details of his life needs fleshing out if sources are available; if they aren't, then it is acceptable to note this. As it is now, however, in the first paragraph of the body, we go from Sperry's birth to his joining the Navy in two sentences. Again, take a look at current GAs for biography articles.

The article is generally not well-written. The prose is sometimes unclear and the grammar is not correct throughout; it would help to ask for a competent copy-editor to help. There are also multiple Manual of Style issues, such as incorrect capitalized headers and reference formatting:
 * As per WP:DATE, Sperry's dates in the leads should be formatted as such: (November 7, 1897 – April 26, 1976).
 * The New York Times obit is listed twice as a reference; rather than writing it twice, use the command so that it is not duplicated.
 * The "See also" section at the bottom of the article should be under its own header.
 * Lone years (1936, 1947) should not be linked.
 * The "Website" field in the infobox seems to lead to a fansite (I'm presuming yours?); it should only be used for official websites of the author.
 * Image:CallItCourage 1sted.jpg is lacking a fair use rationale. See Image:Tarzan and the lost empire.jpg for an example of how to do this (and the Tarzan image is missing the article name in the Article field).
 * "Titles in print" is not necessary, nor are the ISBNs. A "List of works" would be more suitable and comprehensive (see WP:LOW).
 * The references differ in formatting styles and some of them are missing vital information. Citation templates would help fix this.

María ( habla con migo ) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive feedback. I will work on these when I have some time. One point about citing the New York Times: the second obituary is not a duplicate. The Times published two different obituaries on two different dates. Ogram (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review
Hi, I'm GA reviewing Armstronppg Sperry. I haven't read the article yet so it will be about two days before the review is complete. Please note though that the article does not conform to WP:Lead. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I read the article and the talk page and agree with . For some reason, this article has three different reviewers. Since the review comments on 04 Jan 2008, no one has done any work on this page and the nominating editor hasn't edited on Wikipedia since 02 Jan 2008, I'm going to fail this article as it is no better than B-class. Please, feel free to re-nominate the article when you address some of the comments in the reviews. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)