Talk:James Allen Ward/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, suggest linking night fighter

Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do we know the occupation of his father?

No, not in the sources I have access to, which are pretty light on his early life. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for checking. I suspect that it might be in a primary source document somewhere; hopefully one day someone will dig something out for us to cite. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

do we know if he had any siblings, or if he played any sports as a child?

As above. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for checking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest splitting the second paragraph of the Service with No. 75 Squadron section, as it seems quite long (although this will potentially be difficult)

I have split this up at what I think might be a logical point. Still leaves a longish paragraph but hopefully better than it was. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that works from my perspective. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is some doubt whether this incident ever happened --> suggest attributing this in text. For instance, However, according to X, there is some..."

This was a holdover from the article as I found it. Doing some checking, the questioning of the validity of the anecdote was not in the original source so I have trimmed and slightly rephrased this. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

entitled 'Memorial to Sergeant James Allen Ward, V.C.' and --> the MOS usually prefers double quotes, but in this case I think it should probably use italics per MOS:ITALIC

Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

three that would be made to New Zealand airmen during the course of the war: perhaps mention the names of the other two here

Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the References, "Boston, MA, United States": I'd probably just use "Boston, Massachusetts" here

Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the References, "Wellington: War History Branch" --> "Wellington, New Zealand: War History Branch" for consistency

Done. Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there are no dab links (no action required)
there is one dup link in the lead, but in the circumstances it makes sense (no action required)
citations all appear to be reliable sources and all paragraphs/content appears referenced (no action required)
images seem appropriately licensed

AustralianRupert, thanks for stopping by to look at this one. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

1. Well written: Y

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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: Y

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: Y

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. Y

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

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

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.