Talk:Roscoe Charles Wilson/GA1

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 12:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors (no action required).
 * Disambiguations: no dab links (no action required)
 * Linkrot: One External link reports as dead.
 * "Biographical data on Air Force General Officers"
 * Alt text: images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only).
 * Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool is currently not working, however spot checks using Google searches reveal no issues (no action required).

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * This article is quite well written and I could find no major issues with prose or MOS.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All major points cited using WP:RS
 * No issues with WP:OR as far as I can see.
 * One minor point: in the infobox you list his years of service as 1928-1961, however in the text you say he entered West Point in 1924. Wouldn't his military service then have started in 1924?


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article seems to cover all major aspects of the subjects life and career.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues with POV.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No issues here.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * Images are both PD and seem appropriate for the article.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * This article easily meets the GA critera in my opinion, so I am happy to pass it. There is a minor technical point above regarding a dead link and the issue of the service dates in the infobox, but none of these prevent the article's promotion. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)