Talk:Winton W. Marshall/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Picking this one up. Review to follow once the Bot checks in. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Article is okay. I wouldn't recommend taking it beyond GA though.

Hawkeye7  (discuss)  00:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Although his full name is mention ed in the lead, it should also be in the body.
 * Similarly, his nickname of Bones is in the infobox, and is covered by ref 1, but should be in the body.
 * MOS uses British rather than American ordinals (MOS:ORDINAL) so 32nd not 32nd, 93rd not 93d etc
 * Link U.S. Readiness Command, MacDill Air Force Base, second lieutenant, P39, Soviet Union, Bendix Trophy (on first occurrence), Tripler Army Medical Center
 * " 335th FS:" should be "335th FIS" but I'd prefer if it were not abbreviated.
 * At the start of "Post war" and "Later life", replace "he" with his name.
 * "30 to 200 miles" Add conversion template so readers will know how far this is
 * Do we have to have so many paragraphs in a row starting with "In "?
 * Two different date formats used in the references. Recommend using mdy consistently (although US military bios should use dmy (WP:STRONGNAT)


 * I have updated the article by following the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh points that you have mentioned. Toadboy123 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Made additional updates as per your recommendations. However, I am not familiar in using of conversion template for the miles part. Is it possible if you can provide assistance to me for that part only. Toadboy123 (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Made the change for you. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: