Talk:James Allen Ward/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * in the lead, suggest linking night fighter
 * Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * do we know the occupation of his father?
 * No, not in the sources I have access to, which are pretty light on his early life. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for checking. I suspect that it might be in a primary source document somewhere; hopefully one day someone will dig something out for us to cite. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * do we know if he had any siblings, or if he played any sports as a child?
 * As above. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for checking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * suggest splitting the second paragraph of the Service with No. 75 Squadron section, as it seems quite long (although this will potentially be difficult)
 * I have split this up at what I think might be a logical point. Still leaves a longish paragraph but hopefully better than it was. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that works from my perspective. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * However, there is some doubt whether this incident ever happened --> suggest attributing this in text. For instance, However, according to X, there is some..."
 * This was a holdover from the article as I found it. Doing some checking, the questioning of the validity of the anecdote was not in the original source so I have trimmed and slightly rephrased this. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * entitled 'Memorial to Sergeant James Allen Ward, V.C.' and --> the MOS usually prefers double quotes, but in this case I think it should probably use italics per MOS:ITALIC
 * Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * three that would be made to New Zealand airmen during the course of the war: perhaps mention the names of the other two here
 * Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * in the References, "Boston, MA, United States": I'd probably just use "Boston, Massachusetts" here
 * Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * in the References, "Wellington: War History Branch" --> "Wellington, New Zealand: War History Branch" for consistency
 * Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

, thanks for stopping by to look at this one. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * there are no dab links (no action required)
 * there is one dup link in the lead, but in the circumstances it makes sense (no action required)
 * citations all appear to be reliable sources and all paragraphs/content appears referenced (no action required)
 * images seem appropriately licensed

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research: ✅


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.