Talk:Stephen J. Chamberlin/GA1

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

Reviewer: RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Response
 * 1A: All done, except for two where MS Word's suggestion is grammatically incorrect.
 * 1B: Removed word
 * 2B: These sentences already have references. These are placed at the end of the paragraph per MOS.
 * 3B: Keeping the quotes. These provide a view of his performance as a staff officer.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Re, 1A: Which two? How so?
 * "he consider but rejected giving the post to Chamberlin" The suggestion "considers" is wrong; the correct tense was "considered", which was done;
 * "and was briefly acting as Chief of Staff" The suggestion of replacing "was" with "were" is incorrect.
 * Re, 1B: Please provide a diff for each change. It's not necessary but it'll make it easier to check your work.
 * Re, 2B: They may be referenced at the end of the paragraph, but having references after the sentences, as is done elsewhere in the article, would stop future editors from challenging those specific sentences in the future.
 * Re, 3B: That's an editorial judgement that I am OK to pass. But I must ask, why are the views of those individuals more important than others who interacted with the subject? Where there negative views as well? Should those negative vies be given due weight in the article? If not, why not? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one is from the man himself. It is defensive in tone, but sumarises both sides of the argument.
 * The second is from Rogers, who is our best source for the inner workings of GHQ. It is balanced in tone.
 * The article attempts to take a neutral point of view. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All sentences are properly referenced, per Citing sources, with the reference at the end of the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:INCITE:
 * "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text."


 * References can be placed at the end of the sentence or end of the paragraph. As seen in this article, there are some sentences within a paragraph that are individually sourced already. Asking for individual sources for sentences which maybe challenged in the future is not an unreasonable request. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)