Talk:John T. Hayward/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
 * Minor bits:
 * "As former batboy for the New York Yankees," - is there only one batboy per team? If not, I'd suggest "a former batboy" would sound more natural.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "the Bomb damage" - is the capitalisation right? (NB: it may be a nuance in the atomic literature; it's lower case later though)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "As a boy, he was a batboy" - If you went for "As a youth, he was a batboy" you'd avoid the repetition.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "bosun" - might be worth linking.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pacific Theater" - the citations. Probably just my personal style (so treat as a personal opinion, not as a GA review requirement) but I wondered if these would read better if converted into regular narrative (i.e. describe what he did as events, using the citation as a reference, rather than just quoting the citations). Just a thought.
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * " Defense expenditure on research and development grew from $525 million to $4 billion" - it would be worth giving the modern equivalents here (I can help if nec.)
 * ✅ Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * Clear.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;
 * Looks fine at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.
 * None spotted.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * All good.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)