Talk:Ronald Forbes Adam/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this one. —Ed!(talk) 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Lead: "So too did Adam's proposal to create a Corps of Infantry so that others ranks could then be routinely cross-posted. " -- This comes off a bit technical for the lead. Seems at this point his notability has been established sufficiently.
 * ✅ The lead is actually the original article before expansion. Deleted the trailing phrase.
 * Early life: Any sense of his childhood or family's economic background? Was he well off? Did he have hobbies? Seemed this went a long way in some of these top-level military leader bios to establish what made them tick.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added a bit more about his family, his childhood and his hobbies. Didn't want to say too much about his father, who after all has his own article. His brothers are also far more famous than he is.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Mention of children in "Great War" feels slightly disjointed -- maybe put them immediately after first mentioning wife? It looks like the intent here was to tell the chronological story but it is already a little bit disjointing to see mention of 1927 only to then go back to 1914.
 * Moved the kids to after the end of the Great War.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to indicate what of his policy changes, if any, had long term implications, such as which may have been instituted permanently after his employment, or which may have had substantial consequences for military training.
 * Alas, few of his changes survived. Added a bit about this.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Any cause of death?
 * No. Perhaps they just thought that 97 was a good innings.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Consistency: Seeing a lot of ." and ". in the prose, just needs to be standardized one way or another.
 * I'm not sure what you mean here? The Oxford comma?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, just watch for consistency as far as placing period before or after the quotation mark. Not major though, I went ahead and made it consistent. —Ed!(talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Image caption: "The ABCA, ... was often accused of having a left-wing bias as it concentrated on progressive ideas for peace-time reconstruction." -- needs a ref. Also, watch for weasel words as far as "was often accused."
 * ✅ Er, the caption is the original caption from the IWM. Added a reference.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass Seeing no problems with sources used.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass Images appear to show proper copyright.
 * 1) Other:
 * Dab links, dup links and copyvio tools show no problem.
 * Source spotcheck Refs 18, 42 and 85 are all appropriately backing up what they cite in the article.
 * One dead link found on external link tool, needs fixing.
 * ✅ Fixed.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

On Hold Pending some fixes. —Ed!(talk) 03:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok! The fixes made are more than sufficient to make this one a GA. Well done. —Ed!(talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)