Talk:Hector Waller/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some last minute editing going on, so I will leave the review for 24 hours. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, tks Jim. I just finished expanding the article after Janggeom had made improvements a while back and invited him to join me on seeing it through GA/A/FA, so we're just conferring on a couple of style aspects -- I didn't expect anyone to pick it up for review here so soon after the nom... ;-) BTW, tks for finding a few things in your recent edit. Mind you, there are some who feel that linking state immediately after linking town is overdoing things since the town link article will include the state link, so I tend not to do that. Also RANC was linked earlier (fully spelt out) and Westernport is the spelling in the source... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know where your coming from, I was thinking of world wide readers who may not know the common Australian place names. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal for me, I'm just going by the linking style that's served me well at all review levels in the past. Anyway, Janggeom and I are in sync re. the formatting/style things I mentioned earlier, so I think the article is fully stable and ready for you to review in earnest, Jim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article (and to add to Ian Rose's comment, I am likewise pleasantly surprised at the speed with which the review has been initiated). I suspect we will reach consensus very quickly and easily. Janggeom (talk) 16:38, 17 December 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:

Comments

 * Ref 5 Edridge needs the date added for consistency with the others
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the result of the Victoria Cross consideration known ?
 * I believe it's supposed to take up to a year, so we may not know till early next 2012. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done its in real good shape, I don't think it will take a seven day hold to fix all the problems. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks Jim. Are you happy for us to change Western port back to Westernport per the source, as mentioned earlier? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes no problem. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many tks for review, Jim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)