Talk:James Newland/GA1

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

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * No problems, although consider using third level ( === ) headings to break up the text on his First World War service.
 * I have used third level headings for the "Victoria Cross" and "Later war service" sections. Do you mean his earlier service during the war? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Although complete enough, I'd be interested to see more information on his service in the Boer War (what was the "action" that he saw?), his service 1902-1914 in the Australian army and subsequently in 1919-1941 (where was he posted and what appointments did he hold?) As well as on his police service (Which force was he with?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could further improve these areas, but all of the information in the article is as much as I was able to gather from all of my sources. However, I can clarify that it was the Tasmanian Police Force. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * 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):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)