Talk:John Slessor/GA1

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article. I find that it definitely meets the criteria for Good Article status, but I do have a few comments and suggestions that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thank you for your incredible work on this article! -- West Virginian   (talk)  21:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the John Slessor, establishes John Slessor's necessary context, and explains why John Slessor is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for John Slessor is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The image of John Slessor has been released into the public domain, and is therefore acceptable for usage here in this article.
 * In the first sentence, might it flow better if this statement was rendered as such in past tense, ", which examined the use of air power..."
 * Agree -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Early life and First World War
 * Rather than royal army, would it be more correct here to refer to it as the British Army with a wiki-link?
 * Don't think we used the term "royal army" -- he joined the Royal Flying Corps, which was a distinct part of the British Army, and we linked the RFC. I also piped "army service" to British Army if that helps... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be incorrect to state that he was "disabled" in both legs, rather than "lame"?
 * Well the sources use "lame" and it is a more specific term than "disabled" so I'd prefer to keep it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to rewrite the last sentence as "He transferred to the newly formed Royal Air Force"
 * Tks for spotting that typo -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Inter-war years
 * The image of the Bristol Fighter, a type flown by Slessor in the 1920s, is licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, and is therefore suitable for use in this article.
 * Perhaps add a comma to the natural pause after "In May 1921"
 * Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Second World War
 * The image "Air Marshal Slessor as Air Member for Personnel, inspecting Czecho-Slovak personnel during the farewell parade of Czech squadrons at Manston, Kent, in 1945" has been released into the public domain and is therefore suitable for use here in this article.
 * AOC is used in the second paragraph. Does this refer to Air officer commanding? If so, the acronym should be included in parentheses after its first use in the prose, which I believe is in the first paragraph of this section.
 * Agree -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Post-war career
 * The image of the Victor bomber pictured in 1959 has been licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for usage here in this article.
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Later life
 * I'd render the beginning of the first paragraph as such "With his term as Chief of the Air Staff completed on 31 December 1952,"
 * Oops, "Completed" was a typo, should've read "Completing". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also state that he retired the following year, rather than the new year.
 * Well I understand that he retired in January so "new year" was kind of shorthand for that, but we can use the exact date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
 * Thank you very much for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ian Rose, thank you for thoughtfully addressing my comments and suggestions in a timely manner. I appreciate all your contributions to Wikipedia, and thank you for your hard work on this article! I hereby pass it to Good Article status! -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for taking the time to review, and for your helpful comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)