Talk:Leslie Douglas Jackson/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: - the citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required)
 * Disambiguations: none found - (no action required)
 * Linkrot: Ext links all work - (no action required)
 * Alt text: Images all have alt text - (no action required)

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The use of 'wing leader' in this sentence seems a little odd to me: "By 1944, Jackson was wing leader of No. 78 (Fighter ) Wing in Western New Guinea, gaining promotion..." Maybe it could be reworded to "By 1944, Jackson was in command of No. 78 (Fighter ) Wing in Western New Guinea, gaining promotion..." or something along those lines;
 * Yes it does seems a bit of a strange term to the unititiated I think; "Wing Leader" appears to be a kind of exec officer, or operations leader, rather than the commanding officer of the wing -- if I ever find a clear and unambiguous definition of it I might even create a little article or Wictionary entry for it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... no worries then. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "that saw two of his fellows shot down." Maybe reword to "fellow pilots shot down." ;
 * That's fine, wilco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might consider linking these two short paragraphs into one: "On 28 April, John Jackson was shot down and killed while leading the interception of a Japanese raid. Les took over command of No. 75 Squadron the next day." (both a bit stubby otherwise IMO);
 * Okay, would a semi-colon in place of the full stop suffice? I felt the effect was better having a bit of punch to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note sure about "he was appointed Wing Leader" (again the position "Wing Leader" seems incorrect to me but I'm not an expert on the RAAF - if thats what the sources say then no dramas); and
 * See above ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seen. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you able to add the OCLC for the Odgers reference (all the others either have an ISBN or OCLC)?
 * Heh, thought I'd got them all, wilco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (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):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * IMO this article easily meets the GA criteria and there a just a couple of minor prose issues above that need to be addressed before I finalise the review. Please have a look at my suggestions and let me know how you go. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks as usual for taking the time to review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, all issues taken care of. Happy to pass for GA. Well done again Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)