Talk:John Lerew/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) The lead looks just fine to me in its current state. However, the first para of the "Early Life" section is somewhat confusing because it lacks dates. When was he born? When did he graduate from Melbourne?
 * His birth date is in the intro and infobox - putting the birth date in the main body of an article (e.g. an Early life/career section) is not standard in my experience of GAR/FAC. Personally I have no objection to putting it there but I've never done it for that reason and never had any objections on that account. Re. other dates, even his biography is a bit thin in some areas (I couldn't find his mother's name for instance) so I think I've included all I can there. His graduation from uni is noted in the second para of Early life (1935); I could say he was studying part time in the previous para if you think that will add clarity... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Are there any details as to what he did from 1953 to 1966 and how he ended up in Mexico?
 * Well he was still with ICAO during that time (last para of article mentions his promotion to Chief of Flight Branch in 1969). Didn't seem to be anything of great note in the meantime, based on the biography. Re. Mexico, just a holiday I believe, not a posting or anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Also, I don't know if I missed it but is there any detail about his first marriage and the children it produced?
 * Last para in Later war service subsection. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) All website references should be in templates.
 * Again, going on many previous GARs/FACs (including one just last month), the way I've cited web refs is consistent with all other bios I've done and seems acceptable or at any rate has not caused objections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "...Possessed of what the official history of the RAAF in World War II described as an "impish irreverence", Lerew listed among his reasons "Disappointment in the lack of assistance rendered by the Almighty" - Needs a ref right after it since it is a quote (per WP:QUOTE)
 * 2) "...was the first air-to-air combat between RAAF and Japanese forces." - Needs a ref.
 * 3) "the first mast-height attack on enemy shipping in the New Guinea campaign" - Another quote, needs a ref.
 * In all cases, the source for each quote/assertion you've noted is the same as the next citation that appears; I didn't include twice to avoid repetition. Personally, I don't have a major issue with repeating the citation for quotes, but I note there's a lively discussion going on at the FAC talk page about 'over-citing', which may have a bearing on this... Cheers,Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold while a few minor nitpicks are sorted out. — Ed! (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, Ed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good. As the article has already passed an A-class review, I believe you've answered my questions to my satisfaction. It easily meets the GA criteria according to my interpretation of them. Well done. — Ed! (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Ed! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)