Talk:Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Women's Royal Air Force/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against the quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Reference #7 Ockham (1922) p.32 - this book is not listed in the Bibliography
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Online sources check out. I assume good faith for the print sources.
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Whilst reading this I was struck by the absence of detail in places, e.g. five of her secretaries resigned, and her deputies all left at once. I think there should be some explanation of why they resigned. On looking intio this further, I found this from Hansard in 1929 which casts a different complexion on the case. There are strong suggestions that in fact there were a variety of reasons for Pennat's dismissal. There are many other Hansard sorces available here which are worth looking into and would illuminate the political  discussions around the case and the fact that many considered the select Committee's report to be flawed.
 * Reference is made in the article in passing to Miss Douglas-Pennat's local government experience, but no detail, e.g. her service on the London County Council Education Committee.
 * I didn't want to go into too much detail on her early career; I'll do that now. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hansard isn't really a good reference to use, here. What hansard is giving is a transcript of the opinion of one Member of Parliament, an opinion which, as you can see from the rest of the transcript, is strongly in the minority. His view does not represent a good account of what happened, and this is made clear by the responses he gets from figures including the Attorney-General. I apologise for the sourcing on this - there isn't much available. I've got her ODNB entry, part of a biography on Patrick Hastings which covers it and not much else. There is a book Douglas-Pennant wrote about it, but it is useless as a source - effectively Why My Dismissal Was Unfair And The Fault Of Other People, by Violet Frigid-Bitch. Horribly biased, in some cases doesn't line up with the other sources and in others doesn't line up with reality. Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do feel that some mention of the aftermath and criticism of the committee report is warranted however. For instance mention of the fact that Mr. W. J. Brown, MP raised the issue ten years later. Hansard is OK to cite his opinion and the somewhat unsatisfactory answer given by the Attorney General. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to go into too much detail on her early career; I'll do that now. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hansard isn't really a good reference to use, here. What hansard is giving is a transcript of the opinion of one Member of Parliament, an opinion which, as you can see from the rest of the transcript, is strongly in the minority. His view does not represent a good account of what happened, and this is made clear by the responses he gets from figures including the Attorney-General. I apologise for the sourcing on this - there isn't much available. I've got her ODNB entry, part of a biography on Patrick Hastings which covers it and not much else. There is a book Douglas-Pennant wrote about it, but it is useless as a source - effectively Why My Dismissal Was Unfair And The Fault Of Other People, by Violet Frigid-Bitch. Horribly biased, in some cases doesn't line up with the other sources and in others doesn't line up with reality. Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do feel that some mention of the aftermath and criticism of the committee report is warranted however. For instance mention of the fact that Mr. W. J. Brown, MP raised the issue ten years later. Hansard is OK to cite his opinion and the somewhat unsatisfactory answer given by the Attorney General. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * b (focused):
 * See above
 * 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, 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:
 * I am concerned that the article does not completely cover the controversial nature of the committee's report as I have discussed above. On hold whilst this is considered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the matter of the book reference (Ockham) remains un-addressed and the matter of the controversy that followed the report publication remains un-addressed, si I am not going to list this as a Good Article at the present time. If you disagree, you can take this to WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am concerned that the article does not completely cover the controversial nature of the committee's report as I have discussed above. On hold whilst this is considered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the matter of the book reference (Ockham) remains un-addressed and the matter of the controversy that followed the report publication remains un-addressed, si I am not going to list this as a Good Article at the present time. If you disagree, you can take this to WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that the article does not completely cover the controversial nature of the committee's report as I have discussed above. On hold whilst this is considered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the matter of the book reference (Ockham) remains un-addressed and the matter of the controversy that followed the report publication remains un-addressed, si I am not going to list this as a Good Article at the present time. If you disagree, you can take this to WP:GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)