Talk:Eric Harrison (RAAF officer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I have elected to review this article aganist the Good article criteria, and should have my initial comments posted up shortly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now completed a review of this article against the Good article criteria, and am placing it on hold pending a few points outlined below. However, as usual, this is a very good article and it should not take much to remedy these rather minor concerns. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The way Harrison's father is introduced, it seems as if he is a rather notable printer and stationer who has his own article. As this does not appear to be the actual case, it would place his occupation after his name.
 * I don't really read it like that just because the profession comes first, and I kind of prefer it as is because it keeps a couple of "and"s as well separated as I can make them...
 * That's actually why I read it as that, because his profession comes first. However, as this is rather a minor point, I'll leave it up to you. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If he was working for Bristol, then why was he training people to fly in Spain, Italy and Germany? Did the company/flying school expand internationally?
 * Clarified.
 * Did Harrison actually arrive in German New Guinea? The way it is written, it is slightly ambigous whether the campaign concluded before he could arrive, or he was shipped over there with his unit but the campaign had basically concluded.
 * Reworded.
 * Did Harrison skip the rank of captain, or is it just an omission from the prose?
 * No source I have mentions it.
 * Unusual, but fair enough. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Dr Alan Stephens concluded that" - it should be clarified who Stephens is.
 * Done.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * For the Australian Dictionary of Biography reference, you might like to link to Harrison's actual entry, rather than Hippolyte De La Rue's. ;-)
 * Some people are never satisfied... ;-)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Are any further details on Harrison's maden Australian military flight available?
 * Sorry, mate, that's your lot (though I did take the opportunity to add a few more words without actually increasing the information content)...!
 * Sigh* I knew that was going to be the answer, but felt compelled to ask anyway ... ;-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * Although not required for GA, it might be an idea to add alt text to the images.
 * Knew I'd forgotten something in the pre-GA update...
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Tks for reviewing, Bryce - funny how quick the turnaround is for WWI GANs these days, isn't it...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very welcome. Lol, yes, I had noticed that, though I must admit I explicitly picked this one as I did not expect it to possess too many problems, and it would most likely be a rather easy review. :) Well, I believe all of my comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass the article. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, a reviewer after my own heart - simultaneously flattering and expedient! Tks again / cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very welcome. Lol, yes, I had noticed that, though I must admit I explicitly picked this one as I did not expect it to possess too many problems, and it would most likely be a rather easy review. :) Well, I believe all of my comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass the article. Well done! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, a reviewer after my own heart - simultaneously flattering and expedient! Tks again / cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)