Talk:Gordon Steege/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: - one error found (Stephens, The Royal Australian Air Force, pp.236-237, error is "Multiple references contain the same content")
 * Good catch, fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Disambiguations: none found -
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work -
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text (although this is not a requirement for GA anyway so its up to you if you want to add it) -
 * Agreed and done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the lead you wrote "Steege was recalled to the RAAF during the Korean War", however in the body you wrote: "He rejoined the Air Force as a Wing Commander during the Korean War". IMO these are contradictory (i.e. recalled vs rejoined).
 * There is a minor MOS inconsistency I think (per WP:MOSNUM): you say "a force of thirty-four aircraft" and "each involving over 70 aircraft". IMO these should either both be written in full or both use digits.
 * Agreed, fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is a bit light on in terms of Steege's early life, but I assume this is because this information is not available. If you can add some further details about his childhood and family that would be good, but if not please just say so and I will strike it as an issue.
 * One additional scrap from Who's Who...! Unfortunately (or rather fortunately) he has no ADB entry since he's still around, so things like his father's profession, mother's name, and siblings are simply not around. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Just a couple of minor issues to be resolved, otherwise another good article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, all issues resolved so I'm happy to pass. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)