Talk:John Capper/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My main complaint about the article is that it seems to be a list of his promotions without explaining what he did in each of these positions.

The intro promises a lot: "An experienced engineer, Capper was involved in numerous building projects during his years in India and pioneered the development of airships in Britain. He helped establish and command several military training establishments in Britain, was involved in large-scale military planning during 1918 and 1919 and was pivotal in establishing the tank as an important feature of the British Army. Although Capper was sometimes described as pompous and possessing poor communication skills, earning the nickname Stone Age for his attitude towards the ideas of junior officers in the Royal Tank Corps, he nevertheless played a vital role in the development and deployment of armoured vehicles in the British Army."

But the article doesn't elaborate on these achievements. For example, it sounds like he did interesting things in India, but the reader never learns anything specific.

Xtzou (Talk) 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this the whole review, or is there more to come? Unfortunately, none of the sources I have avaliable give that kind of information. Its all in fairly broad brush strokes. If the nomination fails for this reason then so be it I'm afraid.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept that you have done as as well as is possible, given the available sources. It is a complete article and covers the subject. You have been admirably true to your sources and skilfully crafted the article. Xtzou (Talk) 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very well written; prose is clear

   B. MoS compliance:

   Complies with MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations!

Xtzou (Talk) 18:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and the pass. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)