Talk:Frank Buckles/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian   Paul  21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later today. Canadian  Paul  21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! There are three editors working on this article.  User:Anythingyouwant, User:Wehwalt (who is working on others) and myself.  So, if you have any questions, please let us know. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 03:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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:


 * 1) Under "Honors and awards", World News Tonight needs to be disambiguated. - ✅
 * 2) As an overall comment, there are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs in the article, which makes the flow choppy, the article difficult to read, and reduces parts of the narrative to just listing of facts. My general rule is that any paragraph should have at least three sentences, otherwise it doesn't need to be its own paragraph OR it needs to be expanded. While the "three sentence" rule isn't a GA requirement, having flowing prose is, so there has to be something done with these one-two sentence paragraphs to improve the narrative of the article. By the final sections, the prose has crumbled and it becomes almost a bulleted list of random facts. An example of how disorganized this looks is the use of David DeJonge's name - he's mentioned by name as a photographer, then only by "DeJonge" when implied to be Buckles' bibliographer, then he is reintroduced with his full name later as the "family spokesperson", then his full name again as a photographer and reintroduces the film that was mentioned earlier as if it had never been noted before! - ✅
 * 3) I don't agree with the fair-use rationales for the two fair-use photographs - with the first one, however, it should fall under Public Domain in the United States (since it was first published prior to January 1, 1923), so that that should just be a matter of switching the tags. For the second image, however, I don't think that fair use is going to work here. Free images of both Buckles and the memorial are available and having a picture of the two together is a nice visual aid, but isn't essential for the understanding of the topic, so it needs to be removed.
 * The image in question was changed to a NFUR image due to issues raised by Neutralhomer. A version of the image was deleted from Commons due to this deletion discussion. It was furthere debated at this user page. Neutralhomer then raised the issue at WP:AN, which is how I became aware of it. It is quite likely that the image is PD, but as this has been disputed, we need to be able to prove the fact. I faced a similar situation when adding an image to the Penshurst Airfield article. Again, the image is probably PD, but in absence of definite proof of the source, it is being treated as a copyright image being used under NFFU rules, an action which was endorsed at the GAR for Penshurst Airfield, which passed the review and is now rated as a Good Article. Therefore I suggest that the changing of the image to another hosted on Commons be undone, and the image should be allowed to remain under NFFU rules. It is of historic importance and does add to the article. I will raise Commons-related issues with the image on Commons. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Some of the citations need improvement - 7, 17, 25, 39, 40, 42, 47, and 56 are all missing necessary citation information (mostly dates). ✅
 * 2) Per WP:QUOTE, quotations, especially block ones, should be used infrequently and only in situations where paraphrasing would be inappropriate and/or the direct quote significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the subject being discussed. Under "Life during the twentieth century", the block quote about Buckles' recruitment seems inappropriate - it's merely an anecdote that could be paraphrased and whose exact details could be explored by simply reading the source. The block quote at the end of the article, however, is fine. - ✅
 * 3) Under "Life during the twenty-first century", "Buckles' life was featured on the Memorial Day 2007 episode of NBC Nightly News. On February 4, 2008, with the death of 108-year-old Harry Richard Landis, Buckles became the last surviving American World War I veteran." has no citations and requires them for at least the last statement. - ✅
 * 4) Under "Honors and Awards", fourth paragraph "Buckles also received other awards" is too blunt and bland of a sentence to fit in with everything else. It either needs to be integrated earlier in the section ("Among the numerous awards that Buckles has received...") or expanded upon. - ✅
 * 5) Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to do a better job of summarizing all the major sections of the article. - ✅

Finally, I don't feel the article passes the stability criteria, because it's going to be updated and changed once he is buried on the fifteenth. Normally this would be cause for a quick fail. Since the burial is within the range of a seven day hold, however, and it is not likely that a substantial amount will need to change in the article, I think that I will just put it on hold for up to seven days and see how the article develops in relation to my concerns. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that all the issues were addressed so quickly! I still want to see the state of the article after his burial takes place, even though I don't think that the changes will be too major, so I will re-review the article at that time and keep the GA on hold. This will also give a little time for the debate on the first image to develop. Canadian   Paul  05:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a nightowl, so I took care of those quickly. :) Had help on the sources.  From what I have heard, Buckles' service will take place at 4pm EDT, with a special service before hand with honor guards from the Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force.  I heard that service will be broadcast live on The Pentagon Channel here in the US.  Due to earthquake coverage, it probably won't be carried elsewhere (CNN, etc), though I figure the DC locals will have reporters there, with video, so I will watch for those.  Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 05:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One question, besides the image, do you see, at quick glance, anything (before your official re-review) that needs updating or reworking? -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 05:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just skimming through it, the article looks much better and I didn't see any obvious issue with it. It looks like my concerns have been addressed and you even went beyond them to improve the article (for example, moving the quote from his website to a quote box was a nice touch). I'll do a proper re-review tomorrow, but I think that my concerns at that point will be minimal and, as long as the article remains stable after his burial, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't pass it in the end. The only issue that I might raise is that, per WP:LEAD, the intro should summarize all of the major sections of the article, and I didn't catch anything from "Honors and Awards" or "Commemoration and funeral". Canadian   Paul  16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After 26 hours of continous work, help from User:Wehwalt‎, User:Acroterion‎, User:Connormah‎, User:Anythingyouwant, and User:Mjroots, MANY edits and re-edits, a really good U.S. DOD picture, and work on Commons....I am proud to say it is done. I would even venture to say it is FA quality, but that is for another review.  I will check in on your re-review in the morning when I get up, but this editor's bed is callin' his name. :)  Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had meant to do some more work on this, but didn't find as much time as I wanted. I'd like to add my thanks to those who have worked on this. I saw the DoD pictures today, and I said to myself that I was sure it would be in the article before I got home, and hey, it was! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks great! Some final comments before I pass:


 * 1) Under "Life during the twentieth century", the final sentence ("His wife died in 1999 and their daughter moved back to the farm to care for him.") requires a citaiton.
 * 2) I still don't see anything substantial from the "Honors and awards" section in the lead.

Other than that, it should be ready to go! Canadian  Paul  05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I will take care of those when I get back from a doc's appt, which should be after 2pm EDT. Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 16:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, on 1, another user sourced that while I was gone and on 2, I added more to the lead. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 21:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article looks great everyone, so there's no hesitation on my end to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Good luck with FA... I tried that route for another last veteran, John Babcock, but had my nomination shut down and its GA status questioned for a handful of small issues... I hope you have better luck than I! Canadian   Paul  21:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) Gotta get a PR first, but yeah, my next step is FA.  Thanks for keeping up with the article as others and I have made the changes.  Take Care... Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)