Talk:Dick Cresswell/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Changed usage of "Russian" to "Soviet" as it is better to call them Soviet since Russia did not exist as an independent country (only a Union republic) at the time.
 * I take your point, technically, but the sources use "Soviet" and "Russian" interchangeably and, apart from that, using both means that we don't have the same term three times in successive sentences. I have no objection to using "Soviet" twice instead of "Russian" twice but I'd like to have at least one "Russian" in there to break the monotony...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Changed the Soviet-designed to Russian-designed. Kges1901 (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Added image of RAAF Kittyhawks that was appeared as a comment in visual editor. I'm assuming that it was meant to actually place the image in the article. Kges1901 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I just had that one in there as a placeholder while I looked for a picture of the subject, I should have removed it when I put in the shot of Cresswell with the P-40. I don't think it's good practice to sandwich text between images and as the article is about Cresswell rather than the squadron or the aircraft I think we can well afford to lose that P-40 picture. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Assessment
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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thank you for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)