Talk:Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay/GA1

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

I am currently in the process of carrying out the GA review on this article.AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've read the article over a second time and just spent quite some time with the WP:MOS (fun!). This is my first GA review, so apologies in advance if it goes horribly wrong.


 * The following issues require attention in my opinion:


 * Introduction: The lead may be too long (but only just). WP:LEAD states that it should not be more than four paragraphs long. Currently it is five, so this will need to be fixed up. My suggestion to fix this up is that some of the information that is covered in the lead possibly does not need to be there. For instance, I think that the introduction could be limited to mentioning who Ismay was, dates of birth and death, why he is important. Some of the other details such as schools, colleges, postings etc. get discussed in the sections below, so perhaps they don't need to be discussed in so much detail in the lead.AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tightened slightly, and put together the last two paragraphs to get it down to four. I've eliminated some of the education, but I think most of the postings are pretty significant.  A lot has been written, for example, about his time in Somaliland.  I think it's short enough now to meet the standards, but we can always tighten it more if you feel that it is necessary. Cool3 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I think it is fine now. Good job. I'm just re-reading it one more time and checking the miscellaneous stuff. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC) ✅

Result: Pass

Comments: I have reviewed this article and believe that this article passes the criteria for a Good Article, having assessed it against the following criteria:

(1) Well-written: The article is written in clear and concise language, without any major grammatical errors. (2) Factually accurate and verifiable: The article uses a very broad reference base with in line citations for all major points and assertions and contains no original research. (3) Broad in its coverage: As above the article has a broad reference base. It also discusses the topic in appropriate depth, touching upon all aspects of the subject's life. Everything discussed in the article is on topic and adds to the discussion. (4) Neutral: The article does not make any judgements about the subject, and presents only information that can be verified from the sources cited. As above, all assertions are supported by credible sources. (5) Stable: The article is not subject to an on going edit war. Most recent edits have been made either by the nominator who has spent considerable time on the article, or myself as reviewer. The images and supporting materials are relevant to the topic and all images appear to have valid justifications as to their use and copyright status.

I will upgrade the status of this article to GA as per above, however, any further comments are welcome. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)