Talk:Walter L. Reed/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I will review this article for GAN shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, nice work so far, I have the following suggestions/observations in relation to this article's GA nomination: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * was a Major General in the...: decaps major general here per WP:MILTERMS
 * the lead should summarise the entire article, as such I suggest that it be expanded a bit
 * the date format is inconsistent, for instance compare "December 4, 1877" with "25 July" (there are a few other instances as well)
 * in the Early life section, I suggest clarifying who his father was, given that it is mentioned in the lead
 * did he have any siblings?
 * are there any more details that could be added about the Lake Lanao Operations? Also, should this be "Lake Lanao operations"?
 * Appears to be part of the Moro Rebellion, perhaps when "One of Davis' subordinates, Captain John J. Pershing, assigned to the American garrison at Iligan, set out to better relations with the Moros of the Maranao tribes on the northern shore of Lake Lanao. He successfully established friendly relations with Amai-Manabilang, the retired Sultan of Madaya. Although retired, Manabilang was the single most influential personage among the fragmented inhabitants of the northern shore of the lake. His alliance did much to secure American standing in the area." However, I can find nothing definite.
 * After being promoted to captain...: link captain
 * Reed was assigned as an inspector-instructor to the New Jersey National Guard in Newark...: when did this occur?
 * at the request of Hemlick: has Hemlick been introduced at this point? (suggest mentioning full name and role)
 * mobilized guard units --> "mobilized National Guard units"?
 * saying he "did more than any other staff officer to bring order out of the chaos that existed in the camp during the early days.": should have the relevant citation placed next to the quote
 * at the request of Hemlick he was transferred to Base Section Number 5: do we know where this was?
 * full lieutenant colonel in July: "permanent lieutenant colonel"?
 * executive officer of the 29th Infantry: "29th Infantry Division" (to differentiate it from the 29th Infantry Regiment)
 * He investigated Benjamin Foulois and the Army Air Force; accusations of bribery against Alexander E. Williams: the final clause seems to be missing something grammatically
 * 30 April 1940. In April 1940...": "April 1942"? (the infobox says it was 1942 that he returned to duty...)
 * what did he do in retirement from 1946 to 1956?
 * are there any details about what he achieved after being recalled?
 * Nothing I could find for either... Eddie891 Talk Work 14:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the infobox mentions an oak leaf cluster for the DSM, do we know what he received the second DSM for?
 * suggest adding the author of the "Foulois and the US Army Air Corps"
 * suggest adding an OCLC number for the Kelly work (these can be found on worldcat.org)
 * "2019-03-17": inconsistent date format in comparison to the rest of the article
 * Yellow jack: how yellow fever ravaged America and Walter Reed discovered its deadly secrets: suggest using title case capitalisation. For instance, "Yellow Jack: How Yellow Fever Ravaged America and Walter Reed Discovered its Deadly Secrets"
 * same as above for the title of the Kelly source
 * did he marry and have children?
 * the infobox mentions his burial at Arlington, but this should also be covered in the body of the article with a reference
 * there are no dab links (no action required)
 * the external links all work (no action required)
 * the copyright violation tool reports no issues (no action required)
 * G'day, Eddie, are you in a position to address, or respond, to my comments? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * G'day, please be advised that I will leave this review open until next weekend (on or around 12/13 July). If the above comments have not been addressed by then, I will close the review as unsuccessful. The article is in pretty good shape, but needs a little more work to make it a GA, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There has been no response, so I will close the review now as unsuccessful. Overall, I feel that the article is very close to GA and shouldn't need too much extra work to bring it up to standard should someone choose to take over the nomination at a later date, or the nominator returns. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm back from a long vacation which I had no chance to announce. I'll get around to the issues in the next few days, thanks!Eddie891 Talk Work 22:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * think I got everything Eddie891 Talk Work 14:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, your changes look good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks. I will see if I can resurect the review documentation without falling afoul of the bot. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.