Talk:Percy Cherry/GA1

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

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 a list of other comments which, whilst they are 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.

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "Cherry became a complete all-rounder." This sentence kind of sits uncomfortably in the middle of the paragraph. Firstly, it is a judgement that sounds a little POV. Secondly, it sounds a lot like an unattributed quote. Either put it in quote marks and attribute it, remove it, or put a colon after it to link it to the following clause.
 * I have placed a semi-colon in this section which I think suits, if not I can have another look. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cherry agreed and the German died" - sounds a little like the German died because Cherry agreed, which I don't think is the case, maybe add "shortly afterward" on the end of the sentence.
 * Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "fourthcoming" should be "forthcoming".
 * Me and my dodgy spelling. Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but "until the enemy gave up their endeavour to retake it" might read better as "enemy abandoned their efforts to".
 * Re-worded. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2008 (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.
 * 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)
 * The external links might be better presented in reference format, as if they were web-references, including publisher and last access dates.
 * I havn't seen any other external links section presented in such a style, so I have left them the way they are at the moment. However, the links do include the site's publishers already, but not the access dates. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not essential, I was just thinking that the same reasons that internet references are presented in inline citations apply to external links as well and thus it makes sense to treat them in the same way, but I leave it in your hands.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Other than the above, a very fine article and one very close to passing, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good article, passed GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your detailed review and promptly passing the article, Jackyd101. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)