Talk:Arthur William Murphy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b (Linkrot)  c (Alt text)  d (Copyright)
 * no dabs found by the tools
 * ext links all work;
 * alt text is present;
 * spot checks reveal no copyright violations.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in the Early life and World War I section, "Crediting with bringing down two enemy aircraft while supporting Lawrence's troops, Murphy was awarded". I think this might sound better as: "Credited with bringing down...";
 * in the Early life section, perhaps "commission" might be wikilinked to Officer (armed forces);
 * in the Between the wars section, "Darwin" and "Port Darwin" - seems inconsistent;
 * in the Between the wars section, "he was commissioned a Flying Officer in September that year" - perhaps "commissioned as a Flying Officer"?
 * in the Between the wars section, "Promoted Flight Lieutenant, Murphy was posted" - perhaps "Promoted to Flight Lieutenant"?
 * in the World War II section, I think the link to Group Captain could possibly be removed as it is already linked above in the previous section;
 * in the References, endashes might be added to the year ranges for the Cutlack and Mellor works;
 * Heh, that first one looks like a typo; no issues with the others, wilco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No issues.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * No issues.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Looks very good, just a couple of suggestions/points to look at. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks as usual for review, will take care of those points shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all done now, I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks good. Well done. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)