Talk:John Braham (RAF officer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended another comment which, whilst not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article.

The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts.

Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "and fighter ace that served" - "who served"
 * "as the Braham's moved" - no apostrophe
 * "Preparatory School at Belmont from" - link Belmont (and the school if its available).
 * "6 ft. 1 inch and weighed around 12 to 13 stone" - per MOS, provide metric measurements in brackets. See that page for instructions on how.
 * Not yet done.
 * "entire months hospitalised" - month singular
 * "knocking out one of its engines but the cannons jammed." should it be before the cannons jammed?
 * "moved its forces support Operation Barbarossa" - to support.
 * "same day, he second flight" - his second flight
 * "celebrating at a Pub." don't capitalise or link pub here.
 * "Braham claimed his first air victory; a Do 217" - not his first. If his first since his promotion then say so.
 * "countenance Braham's request s was his" - there's something missing here.
 * "His target on this occasions would" - occasion singular
 * " even though he had formal bomber pilot training." - should there be a no here?
 * " buy him a Whisky when" - doesn't need a capital.
 * "who ere also fleeing the Soviets." - were?
 * Spell Hanover consistently.
 * According to the tool, you have two disambiguation links in the article (Benson and Sagan). Fix them please.


 * 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):
 * University or grammar school (which is where he actually went)? No need to link the word university.
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. Since he didn't actually go to university we don't need to know that the certificate allowed him to. Why, if he'd already qualified for university did he go to grammar school?
 * This is still to be answered - the article School Certificate (United Kingdom) makes no mention of university. I'm pretty sure this was the GCSE equivalent of its day, and allowed grammar school education 16-18, not university. I recommend simply removing "which allowed him to join a university."--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the table, why is there no information available for nos. 24 & 25. The claim at least should be here (as with 5 & 6).
 * In the table, by what criteria are some kills confirmed and others not? I'm thinking particularly of 23, which is unconfirmed even though there seems a lot of information available. Also, make sure the location of each claim is listed - don't expect a reader to flick back and forth to check which kill is which in the text.
 * Several locations still missing. In addition please explain the reasoning for the colourations - is this your assessment or from a source? Either way, why are some blank and some red?
 * Green is where the author has stated Braham as the cause of the Germans' demise without doubt. Locations that are missing are so because it is unknown with accuracy. Dapi89 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but we do know roughly where they were - it can't hurt to say "Denmark" or "Northern France" so the reader has some idea of the context. The colour system is much clearer now, thanks.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * "Braham had limited ambitions." seems a bit judgmental and not really borne out by the text. Maybe "Braham struggled at school" or similar instead.


 * 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:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * Placing the "Personal life" section at the end seems a bit forced, as there are personal reminisces and information throughout the text. I recommend merging this section into the narrative at the appropriate points rather than separating it out like this.
 * It just seemed appropriate to keep it one place. The rest of these points have been done Dapi89 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Good work, but a couple still missing, see above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Couple of minor replies above. Nearly there. --Jackyd101 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, article ready, good work!--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)