Talk:Roger Curtis/GA1

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

I'll aim to review this and have comments ready in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Completed review of this very worthwhile article; please address the following in the next seven days before I pass as GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Intro: In the first line, generally I'd expect the rank to be linked and the post-nominal to be unbold. Also, "long-serving" is unnecessary when you say "extensive career" in the same sentence.
 * Done


 * Infobox: I think we generally give the full name of decorations like GCB in the infobox.
 * Done


 * Staff service: "Curtis retired after the trial and died six years later after a in peaceful retirement". Need to choose either "after a" or "in".
 * Done


 * References: There is an origyear parameter in cite book that you can use instead of putting the original date in the year parameter.
 * Done
 * Wouldn't you know, they've changed the cite book template so that origyear isn't producing the year in brackets that it used to. I just noticed the same thing in articles where I've used it. Left a comment at the template's Talk page, where there's some pressure to get it - or something similar - back in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * General: I would've expected an article on a British subject to use British spelling and date formats, however I'm not fussed if American convention is followed as long as it's completely consistent, for instance "rumoured" under French Revolutionary War service needs to be changed to sit with the otherwise largely American style.
 * I have never written in an American style intentionally and I'm rather surprised that you can see it here. Please can you identify examples of American phrasing and formatting so I can eliminate them?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, actually it wasn't as strong as I first thought now I look again. The main things were dates and the word "traveled" (British spelling takes two "l"s). The dates fooled me into thinking they were American format because of the commas, although you in fact have the day/month/year order per UK standard. If you take the commas out of the dates and change "traveled" to "travelled", I think you've taken care of everything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it now, thanks. (and damn my stupid spellchecker).--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * Staff service: "He was however, indisputably brave and resourceful" seems a bit strong, suggest a more even-handed alternative.
 * Done, I just removed it instead.


 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks for the review, with one exception I have addressed the issues you have raised. --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All complete?
 * All good (so to speak!) - well done, an article I enjoyed reading for its own sake as much as reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)