Talk:Reg Saunders/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thurgate (talk · contribs) 18:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * prose:  (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 2) 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
1. Saunders was demobilised and returned to civilian life. Suggest - you reword this eg. Saunders retired or something along those lines 2. Saunders determined. Suggest - Saunders was determined
 * "Demobilised" was the usual term for this -- how about we link it to Demobilisation of the Australian military after World War II? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, in my opinion "demobilised" is more correct than "retired"; the latter implies different reasons and some choice in when it occured. Demobilisation was done for the specific reason of reduction of the military at the conclusion of the conflict and was generally done at a time chosen by the military, not the individual. That's just my take, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah k, thanks for enlightening me to the correct term :) and your suggestion sounds fine Ian. Thurgate (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I used it in the sense of "decided", but I don't mind "was determined". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

3. one of sons. Suggest - one of his sons I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow you to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns. Thurgate (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like a typo... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies for that, I'm fairly sure it was one of mine. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries it was a pleasure to read. Thurgate (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Passed. Good job Ian and Rupert. Thurgate (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Thurgate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)