Talk:Haywood S. Hansell/GA1

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


 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Intro: First sentence of third para is long and potentially confusing - suggest splitting/reprhasing
 * World War II: Term "first hand" is perhaps overused, maybe one instance at least could be rephrased
 * Removed one of two uses. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Haven't cross-checked but are all the citations in the lead necessary? Anything that is quoted or asserted in the lead but not in the body needs a cite, but otherwise the lead info can 'ride' the relevant citations in the body.
 * I have verified that all are in the body, and dropped them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Education: Although his biographers offer a number of explanations behind the nickname, the most likely is that his facial features gave him the appearance of a possum. - just checking, when we say "most likely", is this your interpretation or is it how the cited source puts it?
 * iirc, it was the source, his biographer Griffith. It most definitely was not my interpretation when I wrote it. As for the lead references, I have no objection to eliminating some. I'll check for what's duplicated below and eliminate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was Griffith, who calls it "the simple truth". His source is a couple of wartime articles in Atlanta Journal, 6 June 1943; and Atlanta Constitution, 6 June 1943. I don't believe it either. I suggest dropping the explanation and just leaving it as a statement of fact. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * 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 (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Pursuit pilot: Not sure that the USAAC roundel adds much but, if really necessary, it needs to be captioned
 * Awards and decorations: Previous task force discussions haven't achieved much of a consensus on keeping or eliminating these sections. However Pdfpdf and I - I think the most vocal of the protagonists on this subject - have come up with something that might suit all parties, an example of which is here. Basically it'd be what you have here but in a show/hide section at the end, much like a template. I think employing this method is the best compromise.


 * I didnt nominate this for GA, but I did write most of it. I highly favor use of decorations graphics because photos almosty always show them and it's a means of corrolating. However I think the show/hide is an excellent method. I would ask that wings and other badges remain (as part of the show/hide), esp. since the graphics have gotten better, and that where the decorations have been made into ribbon bars, those configurations remain in that still when hidden. Otherwise, terrific idea. I'll handle the roundel, which is illustrative of the Air Corps era, just as the 20AF patch is illustrative of that command he held. I'm not wedded to it, but I think it helps the reader engage to the period involved.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for a GA. Reedmalloy is too modest - he wrote all of it. My contribution (which 28 edits to his 148 vastly overstates) was merely ensuring that everything was cited. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * Just placing on hold while the above are addressed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the critique. Although in my view of wiki FA or GA rating is no priority to me, recognition is always flattering. :).--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, have moved the Awards and Decorations section per my suggestion above, and all other points I raised have been addressed, so happy to pass this - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanx to you for making the show/hide. I was struggling with that a bit.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)