Talk:Royal Page Davidson/GA1

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 02:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this GAN following my review of the previous page nominated by the same user. Looks to be about the same quality as the previous review. Per usual, I'll begin with a few cursory notes then move on to specification.

Useful Bits: Doug Coldwell

1. It is reasonably well written the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
 * It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout, and word choice.
 * The layout of this page is much cleaner than his father's page. Well written, I will make some minor edits for grammar/readability's sake. Etriusus (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; All inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * It contained no original research;
 * It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * The format of the citations is stuck between SFN and CS1 templates. This is not a failing criterion but I would strongly recommend merging the formats for consistency's sake.
 * I use SFN for books that always have an author, but not all web pages do nor all newspaper articles do. If I put the complete book citation (CS1) within the text that I am editing it then makes it too cluttered (especially for troubleshooting). Keeping the clutter down makes it easier for writing and creating articles. I have written all of my 500 articles I have created using this combination method and prefer to stick with this for ease of writing and creating articles.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, as long as its consistent, then I don't have an issue with it.Etriusus (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In the 1st paragraph of the affiliation section, you list 1 source but that source does not cover every affiliation you listed. Perhaps a link got dropped?
 * ✅ Fixed. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No dead links detected.Etriusus (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Very well down in citation and depth of coverage. Page flows well from piece to piece. In section 5, you state "only received a few graduating seniors to remind them the responsibility that they had to bear". Unless there is a specific relevance to this line, I would recommend removal under WP:TOOMUCH Etriusus (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

4. It has a neutral point of view
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable,
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * No ongoing edit wars observed, editing seems to be predominantly just the nominator. Etriusus (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Images are covered under fair use but the Royal Page Davidson pic needs a caption. I particularly like the template you made. Etriusus (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Initial Impression: Well written and missing most major errors. A few minor edits are necessary before passing but overall this is an excellent nomination. Etriusus (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Recomendations

 * 1) Add image caption
 * 2) Fix citations into a single format (I'll leave this as optional but strongly recommended)
 * 3) Cite affiliation section
 * 4) Fix link to source 29, " "Davidson's Armored Cavalcade". Armor. Nov/Dec: U.S. Armor Association. 1966."
 * 5) Remove excess detail


 * All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sourcing looks good. I see what you intended with the two separate sections and that is fine since it is consistent throughout the article. I will make some minor edits, i.e. grammar/format, and then pass the article. Good Job as always. Etriusus (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)