Talk:Reginald Judson/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kges1901 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


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

Interesting and well written article. Comments:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:
 * Inconsistent ref formatting - some references use harv and others don't. I'd suggest that you change the templates to harv ref for consistency.
 * I think you mean the Gustafson ref, have converted to harv. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you also include a concise mention of the actions that he was awarded the VC for in the lead, as those are the actions that result in his notability? Kges1901 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Have revised lead. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the review, comments addressed as outlined above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)