Talk:Charles Scherf/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

Lead... need to explain the abbreviations "DSO" "DFC" "FCAF" You need to give the full name of whatever is abbreviated, then the abbreviation... example "Distinquished Service Order (DSO)" or "Royal Air Force (RAF)"

This isn't enough to hold up the GA status. I'll be promoting it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, I appreciate it. The reason why I have not expanded on the abbreviations in the lead is because they each have wikilinks on them, which I think will suffice. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]