Talk:Court-martial of Susan Schnall/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Picking up this one. Review to follow. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Article looks good. It's actually a biographical article about the person rather than the court martial.

Comments:
 * Instead of linking Guam, link invasion of Guam to Battle of Guam (1944)
 * Navy nurse - link to United States Navy Nurse Corps
 * Could Vietnam War be mentioned early? AS it is, it is not mentioned until way down the article.
 * Link Stanford University School of Medicine, B-52 bomber], ][[Uniform Code of Military Justice, G.I., The Pentagon, Airman first class, Second Lieutenant, United States Air Force, Brigadier general (United States), Hugh B. Hester, internet
 * Note the abbreviation UCMJ when Uniform Code of Military Justice is first mentioned.
 * Split Leaflet “bombing” after fn 7
 * Link U.S.S. Constellation to USS Constellation (CV-64) using the markup USS Constellation (CV-64)
 * LT -> Lieutenant with link to Lieutenant (navy)
 * Move the image in the Marching in uniform section down to the next paragraph to avoid sandwiching
 * I don't think GI and Veterans March for Peace needs italics, but it isn't done consistently.
 * "in San Francisco on October 12, 1968 and " comma after 1968
 * "On November 14, 1968 Schnall " comma after 1968 (MOS:DATE)
 * "one of the principal organizers of the October 12th demonstration" -> "October 12" (MOS:DATE)
 * "She has been an Assistant Adjunct Professor" - "was"
 * Split final paragraph after fn 23
 * Do not link "Vietnam" (MOS:OVERLINK)
 * The See Also section is far too long. Cut it back. Remove all links that are mentioned in the articles.

As an aside, it is almost impossible to defend "conduct unbecoming", as the final clause is just "other than the above". Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks. Very helpful review and comments. I learned a lot. I agreed with all your suggestions and made the appropriate changes. One exception, I couldn't find a link to Vietnam? There is one to North Vietnam which I thought should remain.JohnKent (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made the change for you. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:04, 30 September 2022 (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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks good. Passing.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks good. Passing.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks good. Passing.
 * Looks good. Passing.