Talk:Colin Hannah/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is OK but not great, 6/10. Although it is good enough to pass, my issue is really that it doesn't bring the man to life and is written with numerous choppy sentances that don't always smoothly connect. For example, "flying Bristol Beaufort light bombers against Japanese targets in Rabaul.[2][3] He came under friendly fire during a familiarisation flight but managed to avoid serious injury. Hannah was raised to" - the friendly fire thing comes a bit out of the blue: under what circumstances did it happen, when exactly and what were the consequences, if any? are just some of the questions that spring to mind. I have raised some of the more serious examples of this below in the scope section and I would like at least an answer here if not in the text as best you can. On the whole this is a pretty good article and will likely pass, but I would like to hold it until the questions below are addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. As far as the specific example you mention goes, there is not much info in the sole source I have for it, but happy to add what little extra there is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * "Born in Menzies, Western Australia, Hannah was the son of . . ." - can you name his parents, or at least his father, since we have so much other information about him?
 * Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "when World War II began in September 1939. He returned to Australia in March 1940." - Did he do anything during the first seven months of the war? It seems odd that he would spend all that time in wartime Britain without doing anything worth noting?
 * Only indication I have is that he was on the armaments course he'd started when war broke out - can make that more explicit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "until he was evacuated due to illness" - any idea what he had?
 * Unfortunately no; only two sources mention it and neither is specific. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "handling counter-insurgency operations during the Malayan Emergency." - can we have soe examples of what he did there? Operations or initiative he oversaw, some commentary on his performance etc?
 * No further info on particular operations. As to performance, I think this is indicated by the next sentence: "Hannah's service during the conflict was recognised with his appointment as a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) in June 1959."
 * "the Commonwealth advised the Queen to . . . but the British Government also refused to agree to this" - which commonwealth is being referred to here, the Commonwealth of Queensland, Australia or of Nations? Also, why was the British government so opposed to reinstating him despite his recommendation by Australian politicians?
 * Will see about clarifying. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks for the responses above. Let me know when you are ready and I'll go through it once more (and probably pass it). Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Believed I've actioned everything above that I can - let me know what you think. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll pass the article, but I think that more context and information will be needed before this is ready for an attempt at further assessment processes.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)