Talk:Ennis Whitehead/GA1

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

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, and should have my initial comments posted within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now completed my review of this article and am placing it on hold pending a few concerns outlined below. Overall, this is quite a nice article and as soon as the following are addressed I will be happy to promote it to GA. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

✅ Thanks to the editor at the USAF portal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ✅ There's always one more... Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ✅ Added refs Fogerty doesn't have page numbers. Do you want the page count according to Adobe Acrobat? Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that'll do. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ✅ Yes, he was a test pilot for the rest of the war. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ✅ He was a flying instructor. Added this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Because Fogerty only lists the awards he received (and only the most important are listed in the article &mdash; there are more). The exceptions are the two which I have independent verification of &mdash; the DSC and CBE. Things will not change until I visit Alabama next. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC) If you can't dig up anything further on these for now, that's fine. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC) ✅ It is, but the quote is there already, so I have dropped it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead requires an expansion and further clarification. The purpose of the lead is to briefly summarise the entire contents of the article. Presently, the lead only summerises Whitehead's World War II service.
 * Remember that endashes (–) are required between date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations. I think I have done all of them for you in this instance.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * As his nickname is not mentioned anywhere in the article, the entry in the infobox needs to be cited. Same again for his awards and decorations listed under the appropiate section in the infobox.
 * Cite #9 reguires a page number.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Would it be possible to expand further on Whitehead's service during World War I? Did he just serve as a test pilot for the remainder of the war? If so, this should be clarified.
 * Is it known what Whitehead's duties were on his initial posting to March Field?
 * Would it be possible to expand further on his award of the Distinguished Service Cross? What did he do during Papuan campaign that warranted such an award?
 * Whitehead is mentioned as receiving several decorations in the infobox, yet only his Distinguished Service Cross is briefly mentioned in the prose. Why is this?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * "the luckless air Allied Air Forces commander" - the use of "luckless" can be perceived as POV, and it should probably be removed unless there is a source that describes him as such and attribute it as a quote.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Well, all of my concerns have been addressed and I am now satisfied that this article safely meets the Good article criteria, so I will be promoting it as such. Congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)