Talk:Gordon P. Saville/GA2

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 11:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

: After correcting some minor grammatical errors along the way of reading through the article's content, I believe it now satisfies the criteria for prose; I saw no other issues in this respect. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

: The article cites reputable sources, and no original research is apparent. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

: The article covers all important aspects of the subject, and does not incorporate anything which stands out as trivial. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. The article does not appear to be biased on any aspect of the subject. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC) . Looking at the history of the page, from present back to at least January, it shows no signs of any editing disputes rising up. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) : All 10 images currently used in the article comply with the rules of licensing/fair use/otherwise presentation. The images are effectively used throughout the article, and have informative captions. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

Is this review going to be finished? Been tagged for a long time now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting patiently, ready to respond to critical points. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is passed as a GA. I apologize for the long review, but I was unable to complete it at a faster rate due to reasons outside of Wikipedia. Congratulations! Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory narrative?
Not to be a gadfly, because this is an excellent article, but even a cursory reading shows an emphasis describing a prescience in opposing the Bomber Mafia's doctrine in 1937 that "bombers will always get through" but ignoring that he argued just the opposite about Soviet bombers 15 years later. Could it be that the impact of strategic bombing in WWII affected his thinking? So-called "daylight precision bombing" was proved wrong, but strategic bombing as a weapon devastated Germany and Japan before the advent of nuclear warfare. The article would be better in explaining this seeming contradiction. Just a thought.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)