Talk:War Birds/GA1

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Copyvio check: I reviewed both non-zero matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues.


 * Image - Suitable commentary in Wikicommons about why it's PD. No issues with position or captioning. Alt text could be added.

Publication history and contents/Bibliographic details
 * There are mentions of "Dell Publishing Co" and "Dell Publishing Co. Inc" - should these be uniform?
 * I made them uniform. The source has the "Inc" and I think I was just shortening it for the first mention, but it's probably better to stick to the source exactly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider changing "milieu" to a more common word (unless it's common in American English")
 * Changed to "setting". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Notes/References
 * I recall the comments about Galactic Central at Talk:Amazing Stories Annual/GA1, so am satisfied with that as a source. The other sources also seem to be reliable.
 * Spot checked part of the source for "Issues of War Birds showing volume/issue number" - no issues. Also no issue with "War Birds: Checklist" and the first use of "War Birds".
 * Range of sources is suitable for a GA of this nature, IMO.

Lead
 * Looks like there are enough details available to make and infobox worthwhile, so, optionally, one could be added.
 * I think infoboxes become troublesome when the obvious fields can't be filled in -- here "frequency" varies and we don't know who the editors were, and title changed and then changed back. The publisher is a constant, and the start and end date, so those could go in, but I would prefer to leave it without -- the issue grid serves to give much of the information more reliably than an infobox could. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Irishman Terence X. O'Leary" - consider adding a word or a few words of intro, e.g. ""Irish pilot Terence X. O'Leary" (You might feel that such an addition would be redundant, as we've just learnt about the publication's "focus on stories of war in the air")
 * I didn't do that because he first appears as a soldier; he's changed to a pilot for War Birds, so I thought it was best to leave the details to the body. Alternatively I could try to concisely recap those details in the lead if you think that would be best. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think on balance it's perhaps best to keep that in the body. (But not a problem either way.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Optionally, add a mention of Steeger and Mowre into the lead. (Again there's a counter-argument; the length of the lead should be proportionate to the article, so we don't want too much in it.)
 * Good idea and easy to do concisely, so done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't find conclusive answers in MOS about whether O'Leary should be described as "fictional" (not currently in the article; I'm assuming he is fictional) and "red-headed" (which is currently in the article). Are you able to point me to the relevant sections or suitable precedents? (If not, I'll have another look - it's my job, not yours.)
 * Good point! Added "fictional".  Not sure what the issue is with "red-headed"?  I think the sources mention it because of course O'Leary is a stereotype -- a brawny ginger-haired Irish fighter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As that's how other sources refer to him, I'm OK to retain it. It just seemed a bit of an incidental detail. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You could probably add a couple of categories. Maybe Magazines established in 1928; and Magazines disestablished in 1937 ?
 * Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article,. It covers the ground I would expect from an article about such a magazine. In the sources I saw, there was no counter to the negative reviews included, so looks fine from an NPOV aspect. I suspect that the article is a much better read than the subject it covers! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A compliment I sure hope the article deserves! Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Following the amendments, and your responses, I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)