Talk:C. J. Chivers/GA1

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

Reviewer: Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs) 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I will be conducting the review for this article; I recently read The Gun and was impressed with Chivers' work. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria A main issue with this article is the imbalance of it's focus. There is a large section focusing on the awards that Chivers has received, and very little about his early life, military service, and personal life. Additionally, many events in Chivers' career aren't explained, as his work in 9 countries is summarized in a single sentence. There is additional information that can be found in the descriptions of the awards he receives, but information about the places he has gone belongs in a section describing his career. I'm going to hold off on detailed feedback for individual sectons in this article, as much of its content would change based upon my feedback. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC) As mentioned on the nomination template note, the nominator for this article has since been banned. Should another user decide to take up improving the article to continue the GA review, please leave a comment! Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) 1. Is it well written?
 * 1.1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * 1.2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * 2.1. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Many of the citations are missing dates, authors, or other information. A quick check on some of the articles referenced shows they do have authors and dates displayed on the website, which should be in the citation.
 * 2.2. 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * 2.3. It contains no original research:
 * No concern.
 * 2.4. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig shows a high degree of copied text, mostly from the quote about Chivers' style of reporting by collecting spent ammo. I would argue that the long quote describing his actions deserves to be paraphrased.
 * 2.5. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * See comments above.
 * 2.6. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * As addressed above, the article is very imbalanced in its focus, with a large volume of text describing the individual awards that Chivers has received.
 * 1) 3. Is it neutral?
 * 3.1. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No concern.
 * 1) 4. Is it stable?
 * 4.1. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No concern.
 * 1) 5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * 5.1. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * 5.2. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Are there any more pictures of Chivers that could be used in this article? There is only the picture in the infobox, and I would assume there are additional pictures of him that would be relevant to the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Are there any more pictures of Chivers that could be used in this article? There is only the picture in the infobox, and I would assume there are additional pictures of him that would be relevant to the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

As this page has not been improved at all, I will be failing this GA review. If a future editor decides to improve this article and renominate it, feel free to reach out! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)