Talk:Henri L'Estrange/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've done an initial read of the article and overall it appears to be at or about GA level: it appears to be well referenced (I've not yet checked them) and well illustrated. I'm sure that the WP:Lead is compliant - I'll come back to that later, if necessary.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting at Early performances, working my way to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. At this stage, I'm only/mostly looking for "problems", so that will be reflected in the comments, if any, below. Pyrotec (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Early performances -
 * Looks OK.


 * Sydney Harbour crossing -
 * Looks OK.


 * Ballooning -
 * The first paragraph is about Hot air ballooning, but the second paragraph gives a detailed description of a gas company filling (well badly) a balloon with gas, as is the third paragraph. I'm not convinced that the second and third paragraphs are about Hot air ballooning, its more likely a description of filling the balloon with lighter than air / lifting gas.


 * Final balloon flight -
 * I more convinced than ever that the balloon was a lighter than air type. There is specific mention of valves and the gas in the balloon catching fire. If it was a hot air balloon the gas for the burners would in gas tanks and the balloon would be filled with hot air.

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Return to tightrope walking & Late career -
 * This two sections look OK.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points See WP:Lead). The Lead does not currently cover many of the points in the article. For instance there is nothing about crowd injuries / fatalities from the balloon fire, two benefits and the final two sections are ignored.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All very good points. I've now expanded the lead, changed reference to "hot air" ballooning to "gas ballooning". Please advise on further changes required. Wittylama 05:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm happy with the article as it is. The hot air/ gas balloon fix was easy and the Lead is better. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting article on this topic. Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)