Talk:Thomas Baker (aviator)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Having done my usual copyedit, I'm happy with the prose, but pls let me know if you disagree with anything.
 * Thanks for that, Ian. It all looks good, so no problems. :-) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Structurally, the only thing that worries me a bit is the way it stops dead (pun unintended) at the end. Did you consider moving everything from Described as "the most gallant airman... onwards into a Legacy section to close it better (and balance the Early Life section)?
 * I actually didn't really think of this, more because I thought it would be rather short and look silly. That said, however, now that I have added the separate "Legacy" section, I rather like it. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * You might make use of A.D. Garrison's Australian Fighter Aces as an additional source - perhaps not much else in it but I did spot that he was already in the militia when he joined the AIF... FYI, I find Garrison's book and Dennis Newton's Australian Aces fairly interchangeable on basic data (Newton has tables of claims for the major players) but the advantage Garrison's book has for you is that it's online.
 * I was actually unaware of this. I'll go though and see if I can add a few extra bits; it should also come in handy when I work on some other aces, too! Re the militia, his service record did mention something, but it was only brief and I did not have much to work on, so I decided to leave it out. Will add in now, though. :) Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Source now utilised. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):


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


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Just a comment that the imagery in the article is excellent, well chosen and placed.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Over all, up to usual standards and if you can just acknowledge the above comments it'll pass in no time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All fine - passed and well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)