Talk:Keith Lindsay Stewart/GA1
Appearance
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Section 1; sentence 1; Consider deleting "the son of a bank manager", and add "His father was a bank manager". The former is a bit confusing.
- Section 1; sentence 2; Link Napier Boys' High School and Wanganui Collegiate to their articles.
- Section 1; In 1914, he entered the; "joined" would be a better alternative "entered".
- Section 1; "having passed the necessary entrance exams", may be replaced by "having cleared the entrance exams". Entrance exams are necessary, there is no need to again mentioned "necessary entrance exams".
- All the 2, 3, 4 Sections are ought to be put under Level 2 section "Military career". That would make them 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 respectively.
- Section "First World War"; "Most of his war was spent in Egypt" to be "Most of his war period was spent in Egypt", just "his war" has no meaning.
- Section "Inter-war period"; Link "Ceylon Defence Force" completely not just Ceylon. Also link "South Island" in the same section.
- Section "Second World War"; para 1; "appointed to Army Headquarters" is a bit awkward. Appoint used for some position, not a place. "transferred to Army Headquarters" would be fine.
- Section "Second World War"; Revise the last but one sentence of para 1, it is a bit confusing.
- Section "Second World War"; para 1; Add "back" after "returned" in "Stewart returned to the 5th Infantry Brigade as its commander", because he once held the command of the brigade prior to this one.
- Section "Later life"; sentence 1; A comma (,) is needed after "Stewart retired from the military in 1954". Also "he was not rewarded with" would be better than just "was not rewarded with"
- Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Krishna (may I refer to you by that name?), thanks for the feedback on the article. There were a couple of points I disagreed with, but I have explained why. Thanks again. Zawed (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Zawed: Of course you can, always. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)