Talk:William F. Dean/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that the nominator of this article is currently very busy in real life, so I have taken the liberty of fixing most of the issues I would have raised in the review. However, there are a few issues that I will need help with before the review can be closed. I will list these below in the criteria section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * a (Disambiguations): b Linkrot  c Alt text
 * no dabs found by the tools;
 * ext links all work;
 * alt text is present.
 * bot reports no copyvio:

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * should "Tank school" be capitalised as "Tank School"? What is its proper name?
 * It was just a generic school at the time, and a "proper" tank school wasn't established until 1940. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * this sentence is a bit confusing, "Returning to the lines, the division resumed its attack on April 18, after the US 10th Armored Division, the 44th took Ehingen on April 23, crossed the Danube River" (specifically the part about the 10th Armored);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * there is redundancy here: "Dean was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions.[1] Dean was decorated for his role in leading the division multiple times, including with the Legion of Merit and the Army Distinguished Service Medal" (could the two sentences be merged?);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think something is missing here: "Just outside the city Dean stopped his jeep where a wrecked truck lay on its side in the ditch with several wounded US soldiers in it. However, as they attempted to escape further they ran into another North Korean roadblock and were forced to escape on foot, crossing the Taejon River and climbing a nearby mountain." (for instance: why did he stop? Did he stop to pick up the wounded, to provide medical assistance?);
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "General Dean had no contact with..." per WP:SURNAME the rank is not required, but also you need to find a way to start the sentence without saying "Dean" as a number of previous sentences start this way;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I am a little concerned about the decorations listed. What are the sources for all the campaign ribbons displayed? For instance, is there a citation that could cover this statement: "As a consequence, what follows below is an incomplete list of the awards confirmed to have been awarded to Dean for his service."
 * I had some discussion with other editors about this. The problem is Dean only wore a few ribbons in photos and we can't independently verify most of them because those records may have been destroyed. Most of the awards are those Dean was eligible for by having participated in those events. I found one source for them but I'm not sure it's considered reliable or high quality. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I wouldn't recommend taking the article to ACR until a reference could be found. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * what arm of service was Dean commissioned into? I assume it was the infantry, but it doesn't seem to be stated specifically;
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we know why Dean was rejected for entry to West Point? Do the sources say anything on this?
 * No, but they reject the overwhelming majority of applicants so it's not unusual. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly confused by this: "Dean was promoted to major general in late 1943". Does this mean that as the assistant divisional commander he held the same rank as the actual divisional commander? This doesn't seem right to me;
 * Yeah, but officers of the same rank are often included in the same chain of command. In this instance, the division commander has been in the Army longer and is considered the superior officer. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "as assistant commander of the US 44th Infantry Division, under Major General James I. Muir in late 1943" but then later it is Spraggins that was the division commander. What happened to Muir in the interim and why didn't Dean take over when Muir left? Is this known at all?
 * Muir only trained the division; when it left for England Spraggins took charge. I didn't include this detail, though because I thought it wasn't important. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * No issues.


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


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
 * No issues.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Overall the article seems quite good, but there are a couple of issues that I think need to be addressed before promoting to GA. I have tried to fix most of the issues myself, but as I don't have access to the sources I will need some feedback. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, I have responded to everything. — Ed! (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)