Talk:The Bomber Mafia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Homesteading this. Review to follow. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of disclosure, I haven't read the book. Sounds like rubbish. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * Yes. I thought this review was particularly good. They say Gladwell has the ability to influence thousands with the book being so mainstream, but for a book so popular it should have been fact checked better, and the main premise of the book was inaccurate. Alas. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ranks are wrong. "General"  Haywood S. Hansell, should be "Major General" in the first appearance lead and the body.
 * Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Same for Major General Curtis LeMay
 * Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "General" Arthur Harris should be Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris
 * Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "This could lead to a minimum of casualties" are we talking about casualties in the air or on the ground?
 * This is more my paraphrasing of the text. The exact text is: "Because the Norden represented a dream — one of the most powerful dreams in the history of warfare: if we could drop bombs into pickle barrels from thirty thousand feet, we wouldn't need armies anymore. We wouldn't need to leave young men dead on battle-fields or lay waste to entire cities. We could reinvent war. Make it precise and quick and almost bloodless. Almost." I've added "war-time" before "causalities" for added context. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the book cover Hansell's less than stellar experience in Europe?
 * It does go over his failed bombing of a German plant that made ball bearings. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit about that to the article. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted, and I don't know enough about the subject to give a real opinion. Here is the diff. What is your opinion? Therapyisgood (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it mention other members of the bomber mafia like Donald Wilson and Kenneth Walker?
 * Walker no, Wilson only in passing. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or anything between 1945 and 1991?
 * I agree something more could be added. I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Bombing of Tokyo on 10 March 1945" Link Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945), and you've switch date formats. Pick one.
 * Linked. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Switched dates. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You mention his treatment of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the reviews but not the summary.
 * Removed from reviews. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "After the United States invasion of Kuwait, David L. Goldfein states that by then bombs could hit, with precision, a specific wing of a building." General David L. Goldfein. Some context needed here: is Goldfein being quoted? (Suggest splitting last two sentences off into their own paragraph.)
 * Split. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passing
 * I'll get to this shortly, thank you for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passing
 * I'll get to this shortly, thank you for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Passing
 * I'll get to this shortly, thank you for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)